ON THE SOURCES AND DATING OF THE VYCHEGODSKO-VYMSKAIA CHRONICLE (BASED ON ARTICLES ABOUT STEPHEN OF PERM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Vychegodsko-Vymskaia Chronicle contains unique information about the early history of the Komi people and the Perm lands. Early copies of this chronicle, however, have not been preserved, and its text is known only from a published copy made by P. G. Doronin in 1927. According to the preface and the afterword of this chronicle, it was written by the priests Misail and Eutychius from Ust-Vym in the period from the 1580s to 1619. The chronicle enjoys a high degree of authority in modern scholarship, and most scholars accept its dating. In 1996, A. N. Vlasov arrived at the conclusion that the chronicle text was a compilation created by Ust-Vym priests in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. According to Vlasov, it was based on various sources. One of them was the Tale of Stephen of Perm, which was introduced by Vlasov to a scholarly audience for the first time. Nevertheless, the chronicle remained a poorly studied text. Exploring the manuscript tradition of the Tale of Stephen of Perm, the author of this article argues that the source of the Vychegodsko-Vymskaia Chronicle was the derivative Extensive Redaction of the Tale of Stephen of Perm, which was probably created in the third quarter of the 18th century. This confirms Vlasov’s assumption about the late origin and the compilative nature of the extant text of the Chronicle, which calls for a critical attitude toward this source.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".