Historical Studies of the Opponents of Church Reform in the 17<sup>th</sup> – the 1<sup>st</sup> Quarter of the 18<sup>th</sup> Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the problem of the formation of a historical scheme created by the Old Believers, to include the socio-religious movement in global Christian history. It shows that the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery reproduced the stratagem proposed by the scholars of Ancient Russia for incorporating of Russian history into the world history, accompanying it with the perception of events from an eschatological perspective. At the same time, they put an accent on the events that, in their opinion, led to the crisis of the Russian society. The next generations of opponents of the ecclesiastical reforms tried to improve this scheme, adapted it due to the changing conditions. By the end of the 17th century, internal church opposition began to turn into a broad religious and social movement, which divided into two groups – accepting priests and not accepting (“bespopovcy”), and each of them – into independent communities. The process of improving the historical scheme proposed by the Solovetsky monks manifested itself especially clearly in the works written in the center of the Pomor association of the Vyg community. Based on the results of the analysis of the Vyg historical narrative the article concludes that the Old Believers considered Russia failed as a stronghold of the true faith due to the actions of the reformers. They assumed the defeat of the monks from Solovetsky monastery, who advocated the preservation of the traditions of the Russian Church, as sign of the coming of the kingdom of the Antichrist. In this situation, the proclamation of Vyg as the successor of the Solovetsky Monastery meant that the Vyg Old Believers community inherited the function of preserving the true faith. The eschatological perception of reality, typical for the Old Believers, determined their view, that only the existence of the community was a guarantee of the continuation of the history of mankind. Such interpretation of history gave the members of Vyg community confidence in their own significance and a sense of responsibility for the fate to the world.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".