Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary Ukrainian Pagans offer an alternative way of constructing a distinct national identity, based on old Slavic traditions, during times of socio-political turmoil. Despite some unifying characteristics, including nationalist views, there are many groups whose doctrines differ markedly. One of the major polemics is connected with the notions of monotheism versus polytheism as the basis for a contemporary Ukrainian spirituality. The debate between polytheism and monotheism, related to creative interpretations of the largely unknown past and dissimilar visions of the future, forms the main focus of this article. Polytheism and monotheism are often viewed as antagonistic categories. Moreover, some scholars argue against these terms, emphasizing their modern origins and strong political connotation. They are viewed as anachronistic when applied to complex and shifting spiritual practices, especially in ancient contexts. In contrast to this, Ukrainian Paganism shows that these antagonistic models can sometimes coexist, although in debate with each other, in the complex process of identity formation even within the same religious movement. While old Slavs likely did not think about themselves in these terms, their present-day Ukrainian counterparts consciously embrace “monotheism” and “polytheism” as modern political categories. In fact, these categories help Ukrainian Pagans to negotiate (among themselves) the best way to build a “pure” national identity. Monotheistic Pagans associate monotheism with the evolutionist idea of “progress” while polytheists emphasize the “authenticity” of their own worldview. Indigenized in this way, “monotheism” and “polytheism” are valid terms for describing contemporary ideologies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".