Klymentiy Hankevych as a Researcher of the History of Philosophy Among the Slavs. Biobibliographic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author offers the first detailed biobibliographic description dedicated to Klymentiy Hankevich (1842–1925), a little-known Ukrainian researcher of the history of philosophy among the Slavs. Based on Hankevich's little-known text, his manuscripts, and publications about him, the individual stages of his academic life and the chronology of his research on the history of Slavic philosophy have been reconstructed. Hankevych’s explorations were the first attempts to understand the place of the philosophy of the Slavic peoples in the development of European philosophy. Based on a detailed analysis of Hankiewicz's research intentions and their implementation, as well as on reviews and responses of Polish, Czech, and Russian historians of philosophy of the last quarter of the 19th century, the author concludes that Hankiewicz's works were authoritative for a number of European (primarily Slavic) researchers of the period in question. Hankiewicz was well acquainted with the main trends in 19th-century philosophy among Poles, Czechs, and other Slavic peoples, and his research was based on solid factual material. His research was based on factual material. This assessment of Hankevich's work contrasts sharply with the corresponding assessments of D. Chyzhevsky and V. Zaikyn.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".