Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transmission of knowledge about the past in the Middle Ages is usually associated with monastic chroniclers and clerical historians.The surviving chronicles, annals, and histories have been the focus of much scholarship and research, and have been extensively quarried for the information they reveal about the events of their time.Only in fairly recent times has attention shifted to other records of the medieval past and to the interplay between oral and written traditions as sources of cultural memory.Elisabeth van Houts draws on this newer approach to investigate "how between [the years] 900 and 1200 people remembered their past and recorded their experiences in oral and written traditions" (p.145).She situates these traditions mainly within the realm of the family and emphasizes, in particular, the different roles of women and men in this process.She begins with a thematic account of the different tools which medieval people used for remembering and recording the past, starting with chronicles and annals and moving on to look at accounts of saints' lives and other written materials (charters, letters, fictional literature).Her interest in these written sources is focused particularly on the oral elements within them.In relation to chronicles and annals, for instance, she examines how writers distinguished between different levels of personal experience, ranging from the author as a personal witness of events to the use of stories about people who were remote in time or place from the author.Her willingness to move beyond these written sources is demonstrated by a detailed and interesting discussion of the role of objects and physical sites as "pegs for collective memory."Among the types of objects covered are relics and reliquaries, vestments, jewelry, tapestries, and books.Although those objects that survived to the present did so because they were preserved by
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".