Istorijska vrednost zapisa u manastiru Sveta Trojica kod Pljevalja
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the rich treasury of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity near Pljevlja their books and manuscripts, there was preserved a large number of inscriptions which talk about the Monastery itself and its activities since the second quarter of the 16 century through the second half of the 19 century. Naturally, this period of over three centuries was not evenly covered in the before-mentioned notes, but rather, they were grouped around some particular events and certain periods important for the Monastery's history. In any case, a large number of inscriptions were preserved on the books now kept in the Monastery, but also scattered across various libraries and other places. If the formatted patterns and the common monastic phraseology, characteristic to this literary form, are set aside, there remains an abundance of valuable historical data which place the inscriptions in the group of very significant sources for the period of Turkish rule. The historic contents and thus the historic value of the inscriptions preserved at the Monastery of the Holy Trinity could be divided in at least three basic groups. The first consists of the news relating to the living of the monastic brotherhood; the second, more general, consists of the data which provides the circumstantial and mostly basic information about certain significant historic events - whether they were the events that had impact on the world history or the ones relating more to the Monastery's wider community-in this case viewed by the eyes of the contemporary monks the authors of the inscriptions; and finally, the third group consists of not so many news which spoke about the privacy of the authors, about some details from their personal lives. The inscriptions created in the Monastery of the Holy Trinity could serve as some sort of 'tapping into the public opinion pulse' in one part of the Christian Orthodox community fitted into the gigantic mechanism of the Ottoman Empire, since the authors of the inscriptions often gave vent to their feelings and wrote about what was on their minds, which in most cases were the complaints and animosity towards the Turks who had conquered them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".