К вопросу о византийских рукописных центрах конца XI в. на примере иллюстрированных рукописей литургических Гомилий Григория Назианзина
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the Greek illustrated manuscripts of the sixteen liturgical homilies of Gregory of Nazianze were produced in the second half of the XI – early XII century, i.e. in the period, which can be considered as the golden age of the Byzantine manuscript illumination. Some codices created in the last quarter of the XI century reveal similarities in the layout and paleography as well as in the iconography and style of the miniatures. But their interrelation is of somewhat intricate character: those close in the artistic style are sometimes written in various types of minuscule (like Moscow, State Historical Museum, Syn. gr. 61 and Turin, Univ. Lib. C.I.6); at the same time, there is a group of manuscripts attributed to the same scribe by F. D’Aiuto (Vat. gr. 1947, Selden. B. 54; Biblioteca Ambrosiana, G88sup., gr. 416), decorated by the cycles of miniatures, which have almost nothing in common. However, few cases of resemblance of the manuscripts both in script and iconography and style of miniatures can be pointed out (for instance, BN, Coislin 239; Mount Athos, Panteleimon, cod. 6). In whole, it may be admitted that in late XI century Constantinople at least one workshop or scriptorium existed, the significant part of whose production were luxurious illuminated manuscripts of the sixteen liturgical homilies of Gregory of Nazianze.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.012 |
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".