Image of “enemy” in Kyiv Chronicle of first quarter of 17th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Find out how the authors-compilers of the Kyiv Chronicle of the first quarter of the 17th century perceive “enemies” and by what means they materialize their vision of the “hostile”. Methodology. The study uses critical, comparative-historical methods, a historical-anthropological approach, and hermeneutic analysis. Scientific novelty. The research explores two perspectives on the perception of the “enemy” from the viewpoint of two authors of the Kyiv Chronicle of the first quarter of the 17th century: a clergyman and a nobleman. The source base, used by the authors-compilers of the Kyiv Chronicle, has been clarified. A new interpretation of some dates contained in the text of the monument has been proposed. Conclusions. The Kyiv Chronicle of the first quarter of the 17th century is a valuable source for studying the worldview of early modern individuals, particularly the issue of theirperception of the “enemy” and the “hostile”. The review of the chronicle block compiled by Kyrylo Ivanovych, the churchwarden of Uspenska Church in Kyiv, shows that beneath the chronicler’s apparent indifference to external events and focus on Kyiv’s internal life and ecclesiastical matters lies a significant interest in key events of prolonged confrontations with the Moscowites and Tatars. Kyrylo Ivanovych consciously selected information from his sources about specific events of the Lithuanian-Moscowites wars and clashes with the Tatars. The chronicler delineated the beginnings of the struggle with the Moscowites and Tatars and marked the end of the war with the Moscowites. Moscowites and Turks are unequivocal enemies for Kyrylo. Under certain circumstances, Poles also fall into the category of “enemy”. The author of the final part of the chronicle, an unnamed Orthodox nobleman, unlike his predecessor, used various means - mystification, “information warfare” tools, and poetic forms - to create a series of vivid “hostile” images - Moscowites, Tatars, and Ottoman Turks.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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 teacher head, 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".