MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518986552 · doi:10.3138/flor.21.004

William FitzOsbert and the Crisis of 1196 in London

2004· article· en· W1518986552 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John McEwan

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiegePoliticsIdentity (music)HistoryCorporate governanceSociologyLawEconomic historyPolitical economyMedia studiesPolitical scienceArtAncient historyAestheticsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The death of William FitzOsbert is one of the most famous and dramatic incidents in the history of medieval London. In 1196 long simmering tensions concerning the manner in which the burden of taxation was being divided finally boiled over. The advocate for the poor and middling members of the community, William FitzOsbert (also known as William cum barba, or Longbeard), took refuge in St Mary le Bow church but, following a brief siege that culminated in the burning of the steeple, he was captured and brutally executed. Accounts of the incident, written by contemporary chroniclers, provide a glimpse into the urban political community. The chroniclers have important things to say about the sources of conflict within civic society, but this paper focuses on assessing the significance of this incident for our understanding of civic governance in medieval London. The accounts of the rise and fall of William FitzOsbert are intriguing, because they show dissension within the civic community, and describe how a significant faction of discontented citizens attempted to express their views and agitate for change. The chronicle accounts provide evidence that allows historians to consider the role of popular pressure in civic politics, at a time when the city was acquiring a new political identity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207