MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032277539 · doi:10.1525/gfc.2006.6.1.14

A Medieval Food List from the Monastery of Cluny

2006· article· en· W2032277539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kirk Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueGastronomica The Journal of Food and Culture · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilenceEleventhSign (mathematics)Variety (cybernetics)MandateHistorySAINTQuarter (Canadian coin)GestureClassicsLiteratureArtArt historyLinguisticsLawArchaeologyAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sixth-century Rule of Saint Benedict places a premium on silence and proscribes speaking at various times, including during meals. In keeping with the spirit of this mandate, the monks of Cluny, an extremely wealthy and powerful monastery in southern Burgundy, placed a premium on silence from a very early date. The earliest descriptions of a sign language used at Cluny are recorded in two of the monastery's customaries, compiled during the last quarter of the eleventh century. A host of signals are described, but, tellingly, these lists begin with those for food. There were practical reasons for this, namely mandated silence in the refectory, but it also might evidence the relish with which monks enjoyed their food. Indeed, the translation offered here suggests that the monks ate very well. Because the signals translated here are almost exclusively substantives, it would be nearly impossible to communicate any but the most rudimentary thoughts. That entire conversations were possible by means of gestures is suggested by contemporary criticisms of monks chattering away with hand signals. For our purposes, this would confirm the likely suspicion that the medieval monk enjoyed an even greater variety of foods than indicated here.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastronomica The Journal of Food and CultureSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207