Demographic Policies Regarding the Regulation of the Population of the Kurenevka Old Believer Monasteries in the 19th — First Quarter of the 20th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a comprehensive examination of the demographic policies of both the Tsarist government and the Soviet authorities concerning the regulation of the number of inhabitants in the Kurenevka Old Believer monasteries from the 19th century through the first quarter of the 20th century. It identifies the official figures and social status of the monastery residents, their geographic origins, and analyzes documents authored by the elders in defense of their rights and freedoms, including their appeals to the highest authorities, such as the Russian emperors, whose decrees facilitated the conduct of monastery population censuses. The study highlights the role of both local and high-ranking clergy of the state church in keeping population records, as well as the reasons why the elders of the male monastery refused to maintain independent metric records. The surveillance activities of the local police aimed at regulating the monastery population are explored. It is noted that, under intense pressure from the authorities in the 1850s, the official number of Kurenevka monastery residents sharply declined, threatening the very existence of these Old Believer sanctuaries. The article also examines proposals by regional and central government bodies regarding the potential relaxation of existing state restrictions on the admission of new residents. It could be established that, despite official persecution, the number of residents in the Kurenevka monasteries continued to grow through various forms of registration used by the Old Believers. In the 1880s, local authorities’ views on the Old Believers on the Right-Bank Ukraine significantly shifted, leading to a relaxation of restrictions. The article also explores the number of residents in the Kurenevka monasteries during the early years of Soviet rule.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".