The So-Called Faceted Palace (1433) and the Architecture of Novgorod from the Middle of the 15th to the First Quarter of the 16th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the history of Novgorodian architecture in the middle of the 15th to the first quarter of the 16th century. In 1433, one of the key events in the history of Novgorodian architecture took place — the German and local builders constructed the Faceted Palace commissioned by the archbishop Eufimiy II on the Vladychny Dvor. The article focuses on two interconnected problems: 1) did the German master builders continue to work on the Archbishop’s Court after 1433; 2) did the Faceted Palace influence the architecture of Novgorod in the middle of the 15th to the first quarter of the 16th century? An analysis of available written sources and the results of research bear no evidence of the presence of the German builders in Novgorod later than 1433. Several new features in Novgorod edifices in the middle — second half of the 15th century should be interpreted as traces of the influence the Faceted Palace had upon the later Novgorodian architecture. Most likely the German Builders returned overseas upon completing the Archbishop’s Palace and never came back to Rus. Overall, the 15th century Brick Gothic architecture influenced the Novgorod architecture of the middle — second half of the 15th century: new construction and decorative features in one way or another are connected with the architecture of the Faceted Palace that appeared in the edifices of the 1440–1460s. However, not all the striking features of the outstanding Palace of the Archbishop are reflected in buildings of the middle — second half of the 15th century.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".