FORTRESS OF UKRAINE ON POCHAIVSKY MOUNTAIN YESTERDAY, TODAY, TOMORROW: CIRCUMSTANCES OF IVAN OHIENKO (METROPOLITAN HILARION) WRITING A STUDY ABOUT THE HOLY POCHAIV LAVRA, CONTENT DOMINANTS AND THE FATE OF THE MANUSCRIPTY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article traces the author’s motivation for creating his masterpiece and the fate of the manuscript from its conception to its implementation against the background of the historical era. The main substantive dominants of the research in the context of the meaning of existence and ideology of the Pochaiv monastery for more than seven centuries are revealed. The genesis, consequences and lessons of the Russification of the Pochaiv Lavra in modern times are outlined. The significance of this monastery for the modern Ukrainian revival is emphasized. No other work of Metropolitan Hilarion (Ivan Ohienko) has had such a dramatic publishing fate, which befell the «Holy Pochaiv Lavra». After it was published in Canada in the early 60s of the last century, several copies illegally entered the Soviet territory, it, among other works of this author, published both in Ukraine and abroad, was for a long time in the most remote hiding places of so-called special funds. Only one or two copies of all printed works were sent to these peculiar book concentration camps for control (others were destroyed). According to the leaders of the Soviet empire at the time, such books carried the danger of communist ideology in the vast expanses of the former USSR. This publication was not lucky even in the independent Ukrainian years. Dozens of its copies, sent by Canadian Ukrainians to their relatives in the Ternopil region, were burned on the territory of that Lavra by Moscow priests, in whose hands this Ukrainian shrine is still.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".