Directions of the Old Rus Church. Architecture Development of the 12th – the first third of the 13th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the process of development in the architecture of Old Rus on the basis of transplanted elements of the Byzantine cathedral construction of its own tradition, which is vividly embodied in the original forms of arch-gabled and pillar-shaped churches. The formation of the archgabled church took place in the second half of the 11 th century in Kyiv, where in the early 12 th century, it acquired finally completed forms. Almost simultaneously in Chernihiv and Novgorod in the first quarter of the 12 th century, and later in other cultural centers, there appeared regional variants of arch-gabled church, of which the Chernihiv variant quickly became interregional, spreading in the south-western regions of Rus. The first signs of pillar compositions are recorded in the first decade of the 12 th century also in Kyiv within the newly formed arch-gabled cathedral. In the middle of the 12 th century in Polotsk there existed already a purposeful search for an aesthetic model of a pillar-shaped church, which in the 80's of the 12 th century moved to Smolensk. The crystallization of the completed forms of the vertically oriented composition occurred at the end of the 12 th century, after which the pillar-shaped church took over the role of interregional type, displacing the arch-gabled cathedral, apparently completely until 1240, when the development of Old Rus architecture was interrupted by the Mongol invasion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".