К истории новогрудской редакции Пролога (на материале списков сентябрьского полугодия)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marina ChistiakovaOn the history of the Navahrudak edition of the Simple Synaxarion (on the basis of copies for the September haft of the year) The article is devoted to the analysis of the structure of the Navahrudak edition of the Simple Synaxarion on the basis of two manuscript synaxaria for the September half of the ecclesiastical year: Russian State Library, Museum collection, no. 4102, first quarter of the 16th century, and the Wróblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, F 19–95, 1512. Their comparison revealed a number of common features (certain additional instructive stories, the Vita of the Three Vilnius Martyrs, the cycle of 10 stories about the Kievan Caves monks) which allow us to assume, that the two manuscripts represent the Navahrudak edition, but this is true only for their main part from 1st September till 3rd February. In the concluding part, from 4th February onward, the manuscript F 19–95 represents the expanded edition of the Simple Synaxarion, while the codex Mus. 4102 combines the same version with the short edition of the Simple Synaxarion. Apparently, a defective copy of the Navahrudak edition has been used while compiling the two manuscripts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".