PROBLEMS OF RETHINKING THE FIGURE OF IVAN OHIIENKO AND THE RETURN OF HIS FOREIGN SCIENTIFIC AND CREATIVE HERITAGE (on the occasion of the 140th anniversary of his birth)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the publication is to trace the genesis of rethinking the perception of the rehabilitated figure of Ivan Ohiienko in Ukraine and to clarify the scope and problems of archival collections in the context of the return of scientific and creative heritage of woodcarving scientists. Research methodology: such general methods as analysis, synthesis, generalization, deduction, system approach are used. The comparative-historical method made it possible to reveal the general and special in historical phenomena through the prism of one iconic figure, as well as trends in the development of these issues. The scientific novelty is that the main «building material» of the article is a little-known fact obtained by the author himself on the basis of a direct study of the archival collection of Metropolitan Ilarion (Ohiienko) in Winnipeg, and first discovered by the author and already processed archival collection at the Institute of National Poland in Warsaw; this part of the documents is still considered both by the creator of the archive, and a number of researchers lost forever. Conclusions. Interest in the post of a prominent figure of the Ukrainian renaissance arose and faded periodically against the background of two mutually exclusive movements: expanding the circle of Ohiienkologists with the introduction of new documents on the scientific side – on the one hand, and periodic attempts by centrifugal forces in Ukraine to compromise this figure. Outdated narratives are also present in the recent resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine: we celebrate the 140th anniversary of the still «church, public and political figure, church historian, linguist, lexicographer, teacher», not a prominent statesman, scientistencyclopedist. Ukrainian society was still not ready for the perception and promotion of Ivan Ohiienko, whom the world recognized primarily for these characteristics.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".