New Finds of Frescoes in St George’s Cathedral of the Yuriev Monastery and Teams of Painters in the Novgorod Land of the First Half of the 12th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The archaeological expedition led by Vl. V. Sedov discovered thousands of fragments of the original painting around 1130 in the St George Cathedral of the Yuriev Monastery in Novgorod during the 2013–2020. Recent finds of fragments of remarkable frescoes in the Yuriev Monastery, as well as in the Church of the Annunciation on the Hillfort from the beginning of the 12th century, significantly expand the traditional understanding of early art in Veliky Novgorod. These murals allow us to consider in a new way the problem of the work of painters’ teams, their migration and succession in the Novgorod land of the first half of the 12th century. Just as the architecture of St George’s Cathedral is the pinnacle of Novgorod architecture, so its frescoes demonstrate the unusually luxurious order of Prince Vsevolod and an outstanding artistic quality. A special team was to be called up for the decoration of the St George Cathedral. Its work continued the tradition of princely Novgorod churches of the first quarter of the 12th century. Probably, the team was called to Novgorod from Kiev, it could consist of artists from Constantinople or be mixed with Kiev painters. Five teams could work in the churches in the Novgorod land during the first half of the 12th century. Possibly they were called up from the workshops of the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev. The participation of Byzantine artists in those teams was not excluded. The style of the Novgorod murals is not homogeneous, and they were created by painters of several generations. There’s no information about the existence of a local Novgorod team of painters in the first half of the 12th century.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".