MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097886391 · doi:10.21226/ewjus613

The Absent Rus' Land and Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi

2020· article· en· W3097886391 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles J. Halperin

Bibliographic record

VenueEast/West Journal of Ukrainian Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Archaeological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithuanianSlavic languagesUkrainianAncient historyHistoryDuchyLatvianPolityGeographyMythologyArchaeologyEthnologyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the Mongol conquest of the 13th century, the Kyivan myth of the “Rus' Land” played a less important role in the east Slavic lands that came under the control of Poland or Lithuania than in the northeastern territory that came to constitute Muscovy. Galicia, which belonged to Poland, became known administratively as the Rus' Land. The Belarusian-Lithuanian Chronicles revived the concept in the Ruthenian lands incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In these chronicles, Rus' Land referred to all of Kyivan Rus' historically, but could denote all the Ruthenian territories in the Grand Duchy, or only those in Belarusian regions, or only those in Ukrainian regions in the post-Kyivan period. In addition, the Belarusian-Lithuanian Chronicles borrowed passages from northeastern Rus' chronicles in which the Rus' Land meant northeastern Rus' or Muscovy. In the text of the Union of Lublin, the Rus' Land connoted the four borderland palatinates annexed by Poland after the Union of Lublin. The Rus' Land also occasionally appeared in other sources. However, Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi and the mid-seventeenth century Cossacks did not invoke the term to legitimize their new polity, thus discarding an element of the Kyivan inheritance. In Ukraine, this discontinuity of the Rus' Land myth has not been appreciated and remains unexplained.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.135 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEast/West Journal of Ukrainian StudiesSame topicHistorical and Archaeological StudiesFrench-language works237,207