This church is our church? Causes and consequences of the disputes over Orthodox parishes in post-Euromaidan Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the causes, consequences, and broader significance of conflicts over the institutional belonging of Orthodox parishes that began following the Euromaidan and continue to this date. It argues that ambiguities and contradictions in state legislation governing church–state relations and in ecclesiastical statutes (bylaws) and lived practices of competing Orthodox churches made intra-Orthodox disputes over parishes exceedingly vexing, to the point of being virtually intractable. Ambiguities and contradictions constrained the state’s ability to implement consistent policies nationwide and vested local state actors with considerable discretion when approving or denying parish transfers. Because these ambiguities constrained all actors involved in disputes over parishes before Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion, outcomes of disputes over parishes have been highly contingent and ad hoc, sustaining “pluralism by default” in Orthodox affairs. After February 2022, legal battles centring on competing claims over who legitimately belongs to an Orthodox parish continued, but as society and the state decidedly turned against actors and institutions perceived to be “pro-Russian,” intra-Orthodox competition may have entered a new era.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".