Patriarch Iov and the Russian bishops of the last quarter of the 16th – early 17th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the internal factors of the Russian episcopate’s formation in the 16th century. It was established that the belonging to the influential church groups had played the most important role till the last quarter of the 16th century. There were three - the monks’ community of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius monastery, the Kirillo-Belozerskii monastery, the Iosifo-Volockii monastery. The period, when Simon (the monk of the Holy Trinity- St. Sergius monastery) was the metropolitan, was characterized by the increase of the number of the bishops from this monastery (1495-1511). The metropolitan Daniil (1522-1539) who was from the Iosifo-Volockii monastery strengthened the position of this monastery. The metropolitan Makarii (1542-1563) tried to strike a balance between these two groups. The patriarch Iov (1586-1605) didn’t belong to the influential church groups. That’s why their influence on the governing of the Russian church was minimized. The bishops were appointed from about 15 monasteries. It was connected, on the one hand, with the attempt of Iov and his ally the Godunovs to weaken the “aristocratic” monasteries, on another hand - with the death of the last capable representative of the dynasty in 1584. For a long time the dynasty supported these influential monasteries and others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".