MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102161613 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.79

The Social and Historical Impact on the Formation of Russian Medieval Spirituality

2020· article· en· W3102161613 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexey Borisovich Lebedev, Alexander Vladimirovich Tokranov, Е.В. Кузьмина

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKazan Federal University
KeywordsSpiritualityContemplationPrayerMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Safe havenState (computer science)SociologySAINTEnvironmental ethicsAestheticsHistoryEpistemologyReligious studiesPhilosophyArt historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the ways of influence of religious worldview on the spiritual life of Western and Eastern Europe. Considering the arguments in favor of the existence of such a phenomenon as a universal «European worldview», the authors conclude that despite the existence of common grounds, the spiritual life of Western Europe and Eastern Europe (in particular Russia) have fundamental differences. The authors pay special attention to the figure of St. Sergius of Radonezh who was the embodiment of Russian medieval spirituality. The Saint harmoniously combined «clever prayer» with practical patriotic activity, thus following the principle of «energetic love». The article also analyzes the «contemplative» and «activity» model of man in the context of the dispute between «Nestyazhateli» and «Iosiflyane». The authors conclude that Russian state policy has been mostly «Iosiflyanian», and the philosophy became a haven for «Nestyazhatel». In conclusion, the authors highlight such a key concept of Orthodox thought as «sobornost», thus noting that in Russian religious thought, human life finds its true meaning only in the human community.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational StudiesFrench-language works237,207