Religious Drama and Ecclesiastical Reform in the Tenth Century
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians of theatre usually discuss the quem quaeritis Easter tropes and Hroswitha’s plays as discrete phenomena: debating whether or not the quem quaeritis represents a first step in the development of liturgical drama, discussing Hroswitha’s plays as the first Christian plays based on saints’ lives and not tied to the liturgy. The Easter tropes and the plays of Hroswitha may not be as unrelated as they appear. The tropes may be more than mere tropes, more than just extensions of Scripture woven into special liturgical services. They may be consciously scripted “playlets” aimed at purposes far beyond beautifying and intensifying the liturgy. These “playlets” may relate to, and stem from, issues of educational and ecclesiastical reform that marked the efforts of tenth- and early eleventh-century, Lotharingian/German clerics, who in turn were connected in a sort of network to ecclesiastical reformers in France and England. Hroswitha, personally and institutionally, was part of this network, and her plays may well be another phenomenon reflecting those policies. To demonstrate that premise, it is necessary to trace the network Lotharingian/German, French and English reformers, Hroswitha’s place within that network, and the common interests and policies of these reformers in matters of ecclesiastical reform.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it