Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of the printing press proved to be a decisive factor in the cultural development of mankind as a whole. In Eastern Europe, the complex path to the new information technology had its own specific characteristics: revolutionary technology was first used for the needs of East Slavs in 1517–1519 in the Czech kingdom and from there it was transferred to Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1521–1522. The process of developing the printed word is linked to the figure of Francis Skorina (1470–1551), who, after the Congress of Vienna, was given the opportunity to become a book publisher in Prague. The focus of the proposed study is a corpus of Cyrillic printed monuments, which together tell an entertaining story of equal cultural and technological cooperation in the first quarter of the 16th century. In the context of mastering and adapting the latest technology, it is noteworthy that the Cyrillic Prague editions are characterized by exceptionally high polygraphy quality, which exceeds the level of Czech printing of the first half of the 16th century. Therefore, they are nowadays regarded not only as valuable works of East Slavic cultural heritage but also as outstanding monuments of Czech printing (významné bohemikální památky). From the perspective of encompassing philology (celostní filologie), from a modern methodological base and a new phase in the development of Prague functional structuralism, the article raises the question of how many of these printed monuments intended for the East Slavic reader were published in Prague at that time.
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 | 0.001 | 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".