Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume is a collection of Anne Hudson's research on Wyclif's Latin works. As the title indicates, Wyclif's ideas are not the primary focus; instead, the book is a monumental study of the evolution, dissemination, influence, and survival of his Latin writings. This vast resource brings together in one volume Hudson's work of almost four decades and completes the picture that began with the publications in the 1980s of Lollards and Their Books (1985) and The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History (1988; rev. ante, cv [1990], 688–90). These seminal works opened the field for scholars interested in charting the map of religious culture and thought in late medieval England by bringing to light formerly neglected vernacular writings by Wyclif and his followers. Since Hudson's pioneering work, there has been an explosion of studies in Lollard texts and culture accompanied by an explosion of interest in defining and reassessing categories of heterodoxy and orthodoxy. As Lollard writings became more accessible to scholars, through the labours of Hudson and others, Lollardy became associated in a burgeoning scholarly field with all that was radical, reformative and intellectually innovative in late medieval religious culture. More recently, interest in a new category of ‘reform orthodoxy’ is turning scholarly attention to the shared academic training and reformist outlook of Wyclif and the orthodox ecclesiastical leaders who succeeded Arundel. This new concept has critics seeing similarities and sympathies across a range of late medieval reformist activity instead of strict divisions between heretical Lollardy and conservative orthodoxy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".