Проблемы развития православия в Северной Америке во время Архиерейского правления архиепископа Тихона (Беллавина). 1899-1906 гг
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.021 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it