Church union: the quandaries over acceptance of the Union of Brest (1595–96)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Union of Brest of 1595–96 brought many of the hierarchs, clergy, and faithful of the Orthodox Kyiv Metropolitanate into the Catholic Church. Yet from the first, large segments of the church in the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth rejected the Union. This paper poses the question of why there was resistance to the Union by presenting counterfactual premises of what the chances for the Union would have been 30 years earlier and 30 years later. It suggests that care must be taken in understanding terminology on religious issues within the context of the period and in taking into account varying usages by clergy and laity. It maintains that increasing attention to Catholicism and Orthodoxy as confessions transformed the environment in which attempts to carry out the Union occurred. Before the Khmel′nyts′kyi Uprising of 1648, many of the participants of the discussions on the Union sought to maintain the unity of all Ruthenians through compromise. After the violent uprising, the formation of the Cossack Hetmanate, and the decline of tolerance in the Commonwealth, attempts at union took place in an atmosphere of heightened confessional allegiance and the more forceful intervention of political authorities in religious affairs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".