Ottawa and Bucharest Fragments of the Apostolus Christinopolitanus of the 12th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article updates the issue of identification and attribution of Cyrillic fragments of the Middle Ages using the example of the Apostolus Christinopolitanus of the 12th century. The purpose of the study is to fact-check two fragments that supposedly belong to the codex, and their attribution. The article’s methodology is built on the principles of scientific systematicity, integrity, objectivity, and historicism. During conducting the research, general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction were used; generalhistorical:chronological, problem-thematic, and archival heuristics, as wellas specific ones, which are used in the study of written sources. The textology methods contribute to identifying the content of fragments; the methods of palaeography and codicology indicate the inconsistency of the selected fragmentswith the Apostolus Christinopolitanus. The scientifi c novelty is that forthe fi rst time, the fact of belonging to the Apostolus Christinopolitanus of two fragments in Canada and Romania has been disproved, and thus their new attribution has been realized. Conclusions. On the example of two parchment fragments kept in Ottawa (Canada) and Bucharest (Romania), the issues of historical memory and the phenomenon of heritage attribution are raised. Identifications of the fragment from the Archive of Oleksandr Kolessa in Ottawa and the manuscript Ms. Sl. 790 from the Library of the Romanian Academy of Sciences, allowed experts Iraida Gerus-Tarnavetska, Iryna Matiash (Ottawa fragment), and Maria Korogodina (Bucharest fragment) to make conclusion that the manuscripts are parts of Apostolus Christinopolitanus of the 12th century. The research catches mistakes made by experts in describing these fragments and so falsifying the artefacts due to incorrect attribution, which is related to the identification of the Ottawa and Bucharest fragments with the Apostolus Christinopolitanus. The article proves that the claimed fragments are not part of the Apostolus Christinopolitanus and never belonged to it. A new attribution of the manuscripts shows that the Ottawa fragment is the folio 10 from the Buchach Gospel of the 13th century, and the Bucharest fragment is the Complete Apostol aprakos of the 12th-13th centuries.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".