The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians, and Courts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is reassuring to learn that since the classical period historical opinion about lawyers has been divided among those who held a high opinion of them (generally lawyers) and those who characterised them as smooth-talking, money-grubbing hypocrites (the bulk of society). While the eminent Roman jurist, Ulpian (d. 233 CE), saw lawyers as a ‘priestly caste’ with a correspondingly high set of intellectual and moral obligations—a sentiment echoed by Placentinus (d. 1192), who wrote that ‘legal wisdom is a most sacred thing, not to be sullied by a price tag’—throughout late antiquity and the middle ages, most of those learned in one or both of the two laws, canon and civil, evidently also subscribed to the principle that ‘no one can be expected to fight for another at his own expense’. In this monumental new book, which argues that, between the second half of the twelfth century and the second quarter of the thirteenth, law moved from being an academic occupation to a learned profession, James Brundage also reveals that plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".