Проблемы развития православия в Северной Америке во время Архиерейского правления архиепископа Тихона (Беллавина). 1899-1906 гг
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article discusses issues related to the development and spread of Orthodox Christianity in North America in the late XIX early XX centuries. At this time, immigration from Eastern Europe is growing. Increases the number of people professes Orthodoxy and it starts of influence this denomination for the eastern United States and Canada. These developments have increased prestige of the Orthodox Church in North America before the need for reform to a new level of it activity. Initially, the Orthodox faith was should only apply in North America on the western territories (Alaska, Aleutians and some western states). After the sale (1867) the Alaska to the Government of U.S., Orthodoxy relationship and cultural and economic situation in the region are going down. Indigenous peoples have been deprived of custody of cultural and spiritual help. The new government was interested only in the development of the natural resources region. Rebirth of the Russian Orthodox Church in America began in 1890, the XIX century and it was associated with the activities of Bishop Nikolai (Ziorova). Despite significant increases in the Orthodox community and the territorial expansion of Bishop Nikolai was just a scheme of structural changes. From 1899 to 1906 diocese of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska was led by Bishop Tikhon Bellavin (Archbishop since 1905, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church since 1917). That he managed to solve many problems of Orthodoxy in America to survive on the structural changes in the diocese, which in turn allows the Orthodox Church of America to survive in the disasters of the early twentieth century. In addition, this allowed the Orthodox Church in America to gain independence from government and religious structures of the United States (autocephalous) and persist to this day. After Bishop Tikhon was head of the diocese and it will quickly expand the territory and she gave a population growth of believers. However, challenges remained. These were: lack of money, poor structure, there were few priests, new churches were not there, there was need to build a monastery and seminary. In the seven years of Archbishop Tikhon position of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America is changing qualitatively. As a new leader, He greatly increased the growth of financial assets and activity of fraternities, parishes, and especially Orthodox society Mutual. As a result was done the creation of new and refurbishment of old temples, the construction of the Cathedral in New York, financial assistance to needy through charitable fund, the development of the Orthodox press, the opening of the seminary, the seminary scholarships, etc. Bishop Tikhon opened first America's Orthodox seminary in Minneapolis and school in Cleveland. All of it allowed the diocese prepare priestly personnel for diocese's needs. The number of clergy in leadership of Tikhon was two times greater than before. In 1905 the diocese was opened by an Orthodox monastery. It was the first Orthodox monastery in North America. In summary we can say that the implementation of Archbishop Tikhon transformation considerably strengthened the diocese. He created a cult with a developed infrastructure. For this reason, Orthodox Church in America in a position was to resist the break with Russia and save an independent organization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».