Lucidarius in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, and Czechia: Types of Reception in the mid-16th to the First Quarter of the 20th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is focused on the problems of historical typology of the Slavic reception of the translated Lucidarius (Lucidář) in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, and Czechia throughout its existence. For the first time, a general overview of Slavic evidences is presented in a generalized way, reflecting various types of perception (positive, negative, and neutral) of the specific literary text and indicating the chronology of each of them. Based on these evidences, their historical interpretation is presented, which consists in identifying two qualitatively different stages in the reception of the text under consideration: emotionally engaged (it can equally manifest itself in a positive or negative attitude) and neutral. The change of these historical stages took place in different Slavic countries within half a century (from the 1850s/60s to the 1920s). This process did not depend on the national characteristics of the functioning of Lucidaria, for example, the number of translations performed or their manuscript copies made, as well as the presence or the absence of a local Slavic printed tradition of this particular text, which significantly influenced the degree of its dissemination and, consequently, the level of acquaintance with it in the reading public.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".