(Re)Constructing an Orthodox ‘Scenario of Power’: The Restoration of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate in Revolutionary Russia (1917–1918)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Russian Revolutions of 1917 ushered in an era of change and upheaval in Russian political and civil society. The Russian Orthodox Church was not removed from the new social and political context in which old certainties were being undermined and new systems imagined. In the heady days of October, the Church underwent its own ‘revolution’ as it elected a patriarch to lead it for the first time in over two hundred years. Through the patriarchal enthronement ceremony and the rhetoric attached to it, Church leaders advanced a new vision of Russia: one in which the Church would be a guiding moral light for the nation in tumultuous times. In this new ‘scenario of power,’ the Church reclaimed symbols and narratives that the tsars had previously used to describe their autocratic rule. Yet, in the democratizing climate of the revolution, the Church did not have exclusive control over the narrative of the patriarchate. Throughout 1917 and 1918, journalists and individuals who wrote to the patriarch advanced their own visions of the patriarchate and its role in the new Russia – visions which sometimes contradicted that offered by the Church hierarchy itself. The patriarchate became a vessel for narratives of Russia and of the revolution through which people expressed their hopes, fears, and even dreams for the future of Russia. When viewed in this light, the patriarchate itself is revealed to be not a mere holdover of the old regime or an institution of interest to those who study the Church, but rather a crucial device for revealing new voices of the Russian Revolution.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".