The issue of belonging of metropolitan Joasaph (Skripitsyn) to the circle of “non-possessors”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article contains a critical analysis of the opinion prevailing in russian historiography that the metropolitan of All Russia Joasaph (Skripitsyn), unlike his predecessor Daniil, was a supporter of the so-called «non-possessors» - representatives of russian monasticism who called for renouncement of monasteries from land estates. Based on the sources cited in the article, the author comes to the conclusion that the opinion that metropolitan Joasaph (Skripitsyn) belongs to the «non-possessors» should be recognized as unfounded. It seems that in the context of modern ideas about the controversy between "Josephites" and "non-possessors" it would be generally incorrect to raise the question of the "non-possessiveness" of Ioasaph (Skripitsyn). Russian monasticism in the second quarter of the 16th century. was not totally divided on the issue of attitude to the monastic lands into two irreconcilable camps. The presence in his midst of groups of "Josephites" and "nonpossessors" who occupied extreme positions on the issue of church land ownership does not mean that all the rest certainly had to decide on such a "party" affiliation. Joasaph (Skripitsyn), unlike Metropolitan Daniel and Vassian (Patrikeev), most likely was alien to such a biased view of both the problem of monastic lands and monasticism in general.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".