Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iconography of the Ukrainian diaspora is an important component of Ukrainian (Western Ukrainian) canonical sacred art. Genetically, the iconography of the Ukrainian diaspora is based on the principles of Byzantine iconography, which included the color canon, the compositional canon and the canon of proportions, which performed important functions in Byzantine art. Ukrainian artists of the diaspora, adhering to the Byzantine iconographic canon, believed that it brings to the art information of utilitarian, historical and narrative plan. Scientific intelligence is devoted to these issues. The purpose of the section is to analyze the preservation of the iconographic canon in the sacred art of artists of the Ukrainian diaspora in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. It is necessary to consider the Byzantine iconographic rules, which serve as an artistic scheme for the creation of Christological, Mariological and festive themes in the iconography presented in the temples of ethnic minorities. Using the principles of Byzantine aesthetics, the diaspora artists of Ukrainian origin (Petro Kholodny Jr, Sviatoslav Hordynsky, Juvenal Mokrytsky and Khrystyna Dokhvat) managed to preserve the ancient Eastern Christian tradition of cult painting. The art of the above-mentioned artists is based on strict artistic rules recognized by the official Church after the Trullian Council (691-692), the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) and the «Triumph of Orthodoxy», associated with decisions to introduce the dogma of icon worship in Constantinople Council (843). Preservation of the iconographic canon in the Ukrainian diaspora is a manifestation of the ancient Christian artistic spirit, which determined the types of major saints. The principles of the iconographic canon used in the painting of the Ukrainian diaspora also substantiated the location of the main gospel scenes in certain places on the walls of Christian religious buildings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".