On the handwritten tradition of the Slavic version of Matthew Blastares’s Syntagma in the principality of moldavia in the 15th–17th centuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyses the relationship of the copies of the Slavic version of Matthew Blastares’s Syntagma made in the 15th – 17th centuries in the Principality of Moldavia. The author studied haplographies (line omissions) in eight of the eleven surviving copies de visu and by photocopies to determine that, in addition to the monastery of Neamc, Suceava, and Romanesque metropolitans, there was another most important center for copying the Syntagma in the Principality of Moldavia of the 15th-17th centuries in the Putna Monastery, where three direct copies of each subsequent copy from the previous one were created, starting with the original Copy of 1472 (Bucharest, Library of the Academy of Romania, Nr. 131). These are the following manuscripts: Copy of 1474 (Moscow, Russian State Library, Fund 98, Nr. 742); Copy of the early 16th century (Moscow, Russian State Library, Fund 98, Nr. 65); Copy of the last quarter of the 16th century (Moscow, Russian State Library, Fund 178, Nr. 4293). The information about the number of Slavic copies of Matthew Blastares’s Syntagma in the Principality in the 15th – 17th centuries has been adjusted upwards, since some of the surviving copies can be traced back to their Slavic manuscript protographic originals, which have not yet been found in the world depositories or not survived to this day.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".