On the Problem of Original of the Greek Translation of the “Kievan Synopsis” from the N. P. Rumyantsev’s Collection (MS RSL. F. 265. No. 615.1)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper deals with the insufficiently studied Greek translation of the “Kievan Synopsis” in the MS RSL. F. 256. No. 615.1 dated to the first quarter of the 19th century. Codicological information about the manuscript is provided. The composition and structure of the text are analyzed in comparison with the editions of the “Kievan Synopsis” and with the previous Greek translation of the “Kievan Synopsis” made by Hierodeacon Kosmas Iverites in 1693. It is established that the text of the MS RSL. F. 256. No. 615.1 contains an abridgment of the second edition of the “Kievan Synopsis” of 1678, however, it is not a direct translation from the Church Slavonic original. Textual and linguistic evidences are provided that the original of the Greek translation in the MS RSL. F. 256. No. 615.1 has been the Romanian translation of the “Kievan Synopsis” made by an anonymous author in the late 17th — early 18th centuries. The difference between the MS RSL. F. 256. No. 615.1 and the translation of Kosmas Iverites, due to the Romanian original, are analyzed, the reflection of the Romanian translation in the RSL. F. 256, No. 615.1 is revealed. The language and style of the Greek translation MS RSL. F. 256. No. 615 are characterized. The author assumes the translator belonged to European—educated Greek intellectuals who had lived and worked in Romania or Bessarabia in the late 18th — first quarter of the 19th century. In the Appendix there is a list of chapters of the “Kievan Synopsis” 1678, Romanian translation, and the MS RSL. F. 256. No. 615.1, where the omissions in the MS RSL. F. 256. No. 615.1 compared with the Church Slavonic and Romanian are indicated.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it