НАДПИСИ К МИНИАТЮРАМ РУКОПИСИ ОР РГБ. Ф. 304/III. № 20 И ИХ ВИЗАНТИЙСКИЕ ИСТОЧНИКИ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье анализируются надписи к 22 миниатюрам рукописи ОР РГБ. Ф. 304/III. № 20, созданной, по мнению автора статьи, в период с 1524 по 1540-е гг. на территории, близкой к Москве, или в Москве. Установлены источники текстов надписей к миниатюрам: это тексты Покаянного канона и Лествицы. На основе анализа ошибок в надписях при миниатюрах рукописи ОР РГБ. Ф. 304/III. № 20 высказана гипотеза о существовании греческой рукописи Покаянного канона, бытовавшей в Москве в первой половине XV в. Временем создания протографа цикла «Монашеские подвиги» в рукописи ОР РГБ. Ф. 304/III. № 20 может быть середина – третья четверть XV в. The article analyzes the inscriptions to 22 miniatures of the Trinity manuscript (Russian State Library, Fund 304/III, No. 20), which, according to the author of the article, were created in the period from 1524 to the 1540s on the territory close to Moscow, or in Moscow. The sources of the texts of the inscriptions for the miniatures were established: these were the texts of the “Penitential Canon” and the “Ladder”. Based on the analysis of errors in the inscriptions of the miniatures, a hypothesis is put forward about the existence of a Greek manuscript of the “Penitential Canon”, which existed in Moscow in the first half of the 15th century. The time of creation of the protograph of the cycle “Monastic Feats” in the Trinity manuscript may be the middle – third quarter of the 15th century.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.015 |
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".