Синтаксичке одлике Прогласа Константина Филозофа (Хил 23)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper deals with the syntactic features of the Proglas (Foreword), \nthe first original Old Church Slavonic poem, which is usually attributed to St \nCyril and is known from three Serbian and one Russian source. The analysis \nbased on its Serbian Church Slavonic manuscript copy Hil 23 (late 13th century \n– the first quarter of the 14th century) seeks to cover various categories \nin the domain of the syntax of the cases and the syntax of sentence structure, \ninfinitive and participial constructions, as well as the tenses and verbal modes, \nand offer answers to the following issues: a) the attitude toward those features \nthat exhibited a greater or lesser competing potential in the OCS canon; b) \nthe attitude towards the Graecized syntax as a high-style feature, typical of \nliturgical books; c) a possible impact of the vernacular language. According \nto the analysis, in terms of the choice of syntactic means, the text of the Proglas \nhighly approximates ordinary speech; this is primarily manifested in the \nabandonment of Graecized forms as a distinctly literary feature of the high \nstyle or their reduction to isolated examples, on the one hand, and favouring \nthose competing linguistic means in the literary language which are rooted in \nthe dialect basis, on the other. Such a striking contrast to the circumstances \nreflected in the translated writings within the core corpus of OCS manuscripts, \nwhich is primarily determined by the purpose of the composition, reveals the \ngenre diversification of the first Slavonic literary language, which must not be \nobserved as a monolithic and static structure whose reconstructed subsystems \ncan be found in grammars, but primarily as a sociolinguistic phenomenon \nsubject to both regional and functionally stylistic variation. As confirmed by \nthis example, the written monuments of the Serbian redaction play a great, \nsometimes irreplaceable, role in highlighting the functional range of the OCS \nliteracy in an early stage of development.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".