MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009290298 · doi:10.1353/cat.2001.0151

How to Recover the Holy Land: The Crusade Proposals of the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (review)

2001· article· en· W2009290298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter W. Edbury

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œCatholic historical review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval History and Crusades
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryQuarter (Canadian coin)ClassicsHomogeneousLawAncient historyLiteraturePolitical scienceArchaeologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By the third quarter of the thirteenth century it was becoming increasingly apparent that Jerusalem, lost by the crusaders in 1187 and reoccupied for just a few years after 1229, was not going to be won back easily. Indeed, the continued threat to the Christian presence in the Levant and the loss of territory, especially after 1260, convinced most western observers that only a major military effort could re-establish Christian rule in the Holy Land. It was against this background that a number of authors drew up proposals for how this might be done. Many of these texts have long been in print and have been considered by previous writers such as Atiya and Schein. Dr. Leopold's study, however, makes a significant advance. He rightly stresses that these texts do not form a homogeneous genre but vary considerably depending on the circumstances in which they were written. Several authors were responding to requests for advice from the popes, notably Nicholas IV and Clement V; others were writing unsolicited advice for particular rulers who were known to have been interested in planning a crusade. Only rarely were the treatises themselves written as crusade propaganda. The authors were men of differing backgrounds and had contrasting degrees of information and experience of conditions in the East. Accordingly some were more practical than others. Opinions varied on preparations and strategy, with some writers more attuned to the problems to finance and recruitment, while comparatively few seem to have given much thought to how their conquests should be governed and defended following a successful campaign. After the 1330's and the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War, the prospects for a major expedition receded and the proposals dwindled correspondingly, although it appears that the view of the late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century writers were still of interest to the fifteenth-century dukes of Burgundy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œCatholic historical reviewSame topicMedieval History and CrusadesFrench-language works237,207