Missionary Brotherhood of the Holy Cross in Nizhny Novgorod Diocese in 1875—1916
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the formation and development of the missionary brotherhood of the Holy cross in Nizhny Novgorod is presented. Attention is paid to the issues of organization, formation of the budget of the brotherhood and its branches, problems of organization and work of these institutions. In the analysis it was found out that for more than forty-year term functioning the brotherhood of the Holy cross had significantly expanded the scope of its activities, covering all the deanery districts of the diocese with its branches, attracting new forces to its ranks. It is noted that by 1913 the budget of the brotherhood had increased 10 times. It is reported that the brotherly library had increased. The author emphasizes that for a quarter of a century the process of drawing up the uniform rules of the organization of the branches of the brotherhood had been delayed; among them there were those that functioned at the expense of the enthusiasm of individual priests or secular zealots of the faith. It is concluded that the appearance in 1902 of the General Charter of the branches brought order, uniformity in their organization and created the basis for providing them with funds. It is shown that the main missionary load lay on the clergy, but in the work of the brotherhood the secular persons of the peasants also showed activity. The lack of finance had not allowed to implement some ideas: to open a charitable institution, to issue regular missionary magazine, etc.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".