Notice bibliographique
Résumé
F ollowing a trial at Session I of the Council of Chalcedon (451), imperialo cials declared Dioscorus, the archbishop of Alexandria, deposed from the episcopacy, pending the approval of Marcian, emperor of the eastern Roman Empire (r.450-457).cially, this as his punishment for his role in the unjust depositions of Flavian, deceased archbishop of Constantinople, and Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, at the Second Council of Ephesus (i.e., Ephesus II) (449), hich ope Leo called the Robber Council. 1 Dioscorus had chaired it, and five other bishops ho played ey roles there ere also provisionally deposed on the same grounds.2 Acclamations at the end of Session II indicate, ho ever, that Dioscorus and the five ere understood to be only suspended from the council, not deposed.3 It later emerged that Marcian had given only tentative approval for the depositions pending the conciliar bishops approval.4 So, at Session III, the council held an exclusively ecclesiastical trial for Dioscorus under the leadership of the Roman legates no imperial o cials ere present they decided to depose him for various disciplinary o enses.5 At Session I , they decided to restore 1 Leo asserted this epithet in a letter to Empress ulcheria (20 July 451).Cf.Document 11 in Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, ed. and trans.,The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols., Translated Texts for istorians 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool niversity ress, 2005), 1:105-7.Subse uent references to these volumes ill be cited in the abbreviated form rice-Gaddis, follo ed by volume and page numbers and then by session and paragraph numbers.here session and paragraph numbers are absent, the references are to the commentary of Price and Gaddis, not to primary documents.2 rice-Gaddis 1:364, Session I.1068.3Cf. rice-Gaddis 2:27-28, Session II.30, 34, 41, 44.This ill be argued more fully belo .4 rice-Gaddis 2:66-67, Session III.78. 5 Cf.rice-Gaddis 2:38-116.42 v Shaun Retallic to the council the other five ho had been deposed they had renounced Ephesus II at Session I, and later signed Leo s Tome.6 This is a basic outline of the events surrounding Dioscorus deposition at Chalcedon, a council summoned by Marcian to resolve a series of problems stemming from Ephesus II.7 Most importantly, the council bishops ere mandated to confirm the true and venerable orthodox faith.8 The decision to call the council, moreover, as largely o ing to ope Leo s re uest, and among the decisions made prior to and at the Council of Chalcedon were a series of doctrinal and disciplinary matters upon which Leo had insisted.is doctrinal demands pertained to the approval of his Tome, hich supported dyophysitism, as ell as condemnations of Eutyches monophysitism and estorianism.f Leo s many disciplinary demands, one of the most important as the deposition of Dioscorus for his o enses at Ephesus II as president, but only if he did not repent similarly, he urged the reconciliation of repentant bishops ho had lapsed at Ephesus II. 9 Many of 8 Cf.First Letter of Marcian to the Council (September 451) in rice-Gaddis 1:107 (cf.2:2). 9In a letter Leo stated that if Dioscorus or anyone else recanted, they should not be deposed from the episcopacy (Ep.95.4,cited in Wessel, Leo the Great, 175).Similarly, in a letter to the Council of Chalcedon, Leo mandated, if, as e desire, all abandon error, no one need lose his ran ( Letter of ope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451 in rice-Gaddis
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
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 ».