Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers theoretical development of the problem of the origin and provenance in the 15th — the first quarter of the 19th century of the famous Old Russian book monument — the Zaraysk Gospel. Although it has repeatedly attracted the attention of archaeographers, textologists, paleographers, linguists and art historians, this article is the first experience of studying these issues. Created in 1401 in Moscow, the Gospel, which is parchment manuscript, was purchased in 1825 by K.F. Kalaidovich for Count N.P. Rumyantsev from the Zaraysk merchant K.I. Averin, that determined its name by the place of discovery. The scribe book of Zaraysk in 1625 in the altar of the Pyatnitsky chapel of the St. Nikolas wooden church (“which’s on the square”) in the city’s Posad, recorded the description of the manuscript Gospel, corresponding by a number of features to the Zaraysk Gospel. The connection of the codex with the St. Nicholas church is indirectly confirmed by the drawing of the church placed on one of its pages (f. 156 ver.) with the remains of inscription mentioning St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. This allows concluding that the manuscript in the 17th century was in the book collection of the temple. In the 17th century, the ancient St. Nicholas church was re-consecrated to the Epiphany, and the sacristy was moved to the stone St. Nicholas cathedral in Zaraysk. It is most likely that in the first quarter of the 19th century, the merchant K.I. Averin purchased the Gospel from the members of the cathedral’s clergy. The article analyzes the context of the early contributions of the 15th century “to the Miraculous Icon of St. Nikolas of Zaraysk”, one of which, most likely, was the parchment Zaraysk Gospel. The authors assume that this contribution is related to the chronicle events of 1401 or 1408. The study is significant in terms of the theoretical development of methods for identifying ancient manuscripts and their origin.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".