MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603669393 · doi:10.3138/flor.19.003

<i>Periculum animarum:</i> Bishops, Gender, and Scandal

2002· article· en· W1603669393 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bryan Lindsay

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeedDoctrineBishopsSubject (documents)Economic JusticePhilosophyOrder (exchange)TheologyLawReligious studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scandal was defined in the medieval church as the sin of causing another's fall by providing a bad example in word or deed. The theology of scandal was developed particularly by Peter the Chanter (d1197) and his early thirteenth-century followers Robert Courson, Stephen Langten, and Thomas of Chobham, and it was crystallized by Thomas Aquinas into the doctrine which survives in the Catholic Church today. Scandal was a sin against charity, since it endangered the souls of others, and most thirteenth-century writers on the subject agreed that it could be a mortal sin, depending on the kind of sin it provoked in another. It was so serious that it was to be avoided at all costs, except where the truths of life (the Christian way of living to attain eternal life), doctrine (Christian teaching), and justice (Christian law and order, and rectitude) were concerned.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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)0.0090.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.124 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207