THE RESTORATION OF THE EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION OF THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN DIASPORA WITH THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE AT THE END OF 20TH CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes two examples of restoring the canonical order in the fullness of Orthodoxy presented by Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada and Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA. In July 1990 the Sobor of the UOCC ratified an agreement with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople that established a eucharistic union between the two churches. In 1989 UOCC made a decision to proceed with the “Articles of Agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople” and to initiate the establishment of Eucharistic union. On April 1, 1990, the delegation of the UOCC officially accepted the “Articles of Agreement” in Istanbul at the Phanar – the office of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Patriarch Demetrius II concelebrated the Liturgy with the members of the UOCC delegation. These articles of agreement were presented for and again received approval at the 1990 Sobor of the UOCC. The Sobor, also in resolution form, made it clear that “in case of any internal-administrative conflict, priority is retained by the UOCC Charter and Constitution as a distinct Church body in a separate, sovereign state”. In December 1994 the hierarchs of the UOC of USA met with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul and came to an agreement recognizing the canonicity of the Church and accepting the UOC of USA and the entire Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the Diaspora into Ecumenical Patriarchate. On March 12, 1995, the entire Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchy outside Ukraine was received into the jurisdiction of Constantinople. According to the “Points of Agreement”, the UOC of USA continue to maintain its distinct internal structure and organization and shall be considered an ecclesiastic entity under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The parishes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America were united with it.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".