The origin of the icon of the Mother of God of Tenderness of the second quarter of the 13th century and the history of its existence in Belozersk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large icon of the Mother of God of Tenderness, taken to the State Russian Museum in 1931 from the iconostasis of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Belozersk, was recorded there in descriptions of local historical sources at the beginning of the 17th century, and judging by them, was a honor city image. There was no doubt about its original from this northern center, which largely determined the prevailing opinion about the nature of the artistic style of the work. Belozersk has long belonged to the Rostov princes, and in 1238 it became a separate principality, becoming the inheritance of the younger prince Gleb Vasilkovich (1237–1279). The appearance of a monumental image of the Mother of God here was associated with this event. However, the work, as a thorough study of the painting shows, belongs to the work of a Novgorod master, which significantly changes existing ideas. In our opinion, the image of the Mother of God of Tenderness of the second quarter of the 13th century, as well as a slightly earlier image of the apostles Peter and Paul (State Russian Museum), ended up in Belozersk only at the end of the 15th century, and in ancient times they were painted for one of the large Novgorod churches.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".