Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It was during Sudbury’s pontificate that a particularly nasty challenge to the jurisdiction of the court occurred, the most serious challenge since Pecham’s pontificate, although, this time, not on a province-wide scale. It involved a case concerning the Augustinian canon, Richard Sutton, master of St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Smithfield, London. Sometime in 1375, if not earlier, during an episcopal visitation of St Bartholomew’s Hospital the master was found to be incontinent with one of the sisters. Three commissaries (or vicars general in spirituals) of Bishop William Courteney suspended him ab ingressu ecclesie . They were M. John Appelby, dean of St Paul’s Cathedral; Roger Holme, chancellor of St Paul’s and M. Adam Mottrom, all acting in the absence of the bishop in remotis . Sutton appealed to the apostolic see and for protection ( pro tuicione ) to the Court of Arches. There the dean, M. Nicholas de Chaddesden, granted tuition and suspended the penalties. On 8 February 1376 the commissaries appealed this action to the pope and ordered Chaddesden to appear before them to answer for what he had done; instead he excommunicated them and soon they him. The lines were drawn, and in May significations were sent by both sides to the royal chancery seeking writs for the arrest of the opponents as excommunicates. Bishop Courteney’s vicars in spirituals had clearly overreacted. Courteney, who had been Sudbury’s competitor for Canterbury, once he had returned, seems to have become personally involved, and what had been a shouting match between two deans became an unseemly struggle between two bishops. Calm voices urged the London party to submit, among these voices some of the great men of the land: John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster; Edmund Mortimer, earl of March; Lord Percy; William Wykeham, bishop of Winchester and Adam Houghton, bishop of St Davids. Perhaps not coincidentally, March, Percy and Houghton were members of the intercommuning committee created in the Good Parliament on 9 May 1376. And, in the event, the London party did submit. Archbishop Sudbury, until recently bishop of London, seemed to take pleasure in recounting their submission in a letter dated 15 Jun 1376: ‘uenerabilis frater noster dominus Londoniensis episcopus magisterque… Iohannes Appelby, decanus Londoniensis, et magister Adam Mottrom nobis se reuerenter humiliassent’. The dean of St Paul’s, John Appelby, and his right arm, Adam Mottrom, appeared in person before Sudbury ‘flexis ipsorum genibus’. The archbishop absolved them of their excommunications, remonstrated with them for their attack on the jurisdiction of his provincial court and annulled everything done by them in this matter. The archbishop and, indeed, his court had carried the day. The article will present the relevant document for the register of Archbishop Sudbury.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,028 | 0,074 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,027 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,025 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,017 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,027 | 0,032 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,040 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».