<i>Senators or courtiers: negotiating models for the College of Cardinals under Julius II and Leo X</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The early sixteenth century marked the intensification of papal efforts to transform the papacy from a senatorial model, with a cooperative relationship between the pope and cardinals, into a court. Using ecclesiastical ritual, Popes Julius II and Leo X constructed a courtly environment in which the College of Cardinals was a silent but visible supporter of the papacy, rather than a group of vocal political counsellors. The written work of the papal Master of Ceremonies Paris de' Grassi (1504–1521) shows the direction and expectation of the dominant courtly model, while Paolo Cortesi's treatise De cardinalatu (1510) exemplifies the eclipsed conciliarist ideals. While modern historians accord Cortesi's treatise attention that does not reflect its original interest to contemporaries, de' Grassi's diary has yet to be contextualized as a practical guide to publicly constructing the cardinal‐courtier as a client of the papal monarchy. This article examines the rituals of the cardinal elevation ceremony as a vehicle for this model's implementation, as well as a site for the expression of discontent by certain cardinals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".