MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bulgarian Economic Thought During the Ottoman Period (15th – 19th Centuries)

2025· book-chapter· W7135065964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pencho D. Penchev, Petko Petkov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicByzantine Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBulgarianPeriod (music)Modernization theoryEconomic ThoughtPoliticsQuarter (Canadian coin)Economic reform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chapter is focused on main principles that shaped Bulgarian economic thinking during the period from the 15th to the end of the third quarter of the 19th century. For most of this period, it was dominated by the norms of Orthodox Christianity, with its characteristic ethical assessments of labor, usury, etc. As the modernization processes progressed, economic ideas that were influenced by classical political economy also penetrated Bulgarian society. Among them, one can mention the ideas of free trade, encouragement of local production, and others. Original theoretical contributions cannot be found. Various economic ideas also penetrated among the activists for the national liberation of Bulgaria. They were focused mainly on an adequate institutional structure of the future Bulgarian state. In the program documents of the so-called revolutionary or radical organizations, ideas and projects for the economic development of the Bulgarians are rarely found, and in some of these documents there are no such ideas at all, except for the most general and recurring statements about the difficult situation of the people under Ottoman rule, which have mostly a motivational purpose.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicByzantine Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207