Reinterpretation of Ukrainian apocryphal literature in chronotope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to the linguistic and cultural analysis of the regional peculiarities of Ukrainian apocryphal literature in the context of modern socio-cultural paradigms. Through the concepts of cultural code and intertextuality, the hypotheses that formed the paradigmatic basis of the study are substantiated: first, the apocryphon is a form of cultural code with an immanent semantic field that contains a system of code units (symbolism, allegory, parables, miracles, and apocalyptic images); and second, the apocrypha are open signs and symbolic systems in which texts with different cultural codes coexist. The intertextual relations within this system can then be interpreted as a dialogue of cultures. In this paper, based on criteria such as historical context, confessional affiliation, language, and themes, the regional specificity of the apocrypha of Ukraine's western and eastern regions is determined. Within the framework of the cultural communication theory, the regional peculiarities of transcoding the apocrypha text into a visual work (icons, frescoes) are revealed. The specifics of the spiritual and socio-cultural life of Ukraine's western and eastern regions are explained. The study results show that each regional culture in Ukraine (whether western or eastern) is distinctive and valuable and has its own periods of progress and regression. This argument gives grounds for recognizing the multiplicity of independent but interconnected models of cultural development in Ukraine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".