J.-L. Roland Bélanger. Damedieus. The Religious Context of the French Epic: The Loherian Cycle viewed against other early French Epics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Religious Context of the French Epic: The Loherain Cycle viewed against other early French Epics.Genéve-Paris: Droz, 1974.xxviii + 299 pp.Since scholars have been so slow to recognize the sociological value of the chansons de geste, Fr.Bélanger decided to compile a book which, he says, will provide for the first time ever the sort of exhaustive catalogue that "had not been available to date for any group of epics."He proposes to record and comment on "every single item of religious significance" in the five poems of the Loherain cycle and to use five other poems of contemporary dating as a control group: Roland, Gormont et Isembart, Guillaume, Moniage Guillaume I, and Raoul de Cambrai.In order to combat our misleading habit of trying to "lump together all these centuries into one amorphous mass," he will be careful to relate each one to the time period he has chosen, 1090-1260.By studying systematically, exhaustively, and chronologically the precise wording of his items, he hopes to trace the evolution of the religious attitudes they represent and, incidentally, to throw light on the dating of the poems.In five lengthy chapters and a "conclusion" (altogether 181 pp.), we are given a miscellany of disconnected, laboriously numbered, lettered, subnumbered, and sub-lettered comments on "items of note," arranged very much in the pattern of an elementary school lesson-plan: Names, epithets and attributes of God; Saints, angels, heaven and hell, relics and the merveilleux; Sacramental and Liturgical contexts; Devotions, pilgrimages, the religious life, the hierarchy and the physical structure of the Church; and a chapter of Conclusions, many of which will surprise by their naïveté or their obviousness.The summary nature of the comments is deliberate, because: "It must be clearly
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.007 |
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".