Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1538 a commissioner of the church charged with the ‘defacyng of the late Monasterye of Boxley, and pluckyng down of the Images of the same’ examined a crucifix ‘in greate veneracion of people’ and discovered therein ‘certen ingynes and olde wyer’ which caused the image’s eyes and mouth to move. For more than thirty years after the discovery of its internal mechanism, the Boxley Rood was cited by reformers as evidence of the corruption of the Catholic church, as (they alleged) it simulated miracle through mechanics and was used by the monks of Boxley for monetary gain. This paper reviews accounts of the Boxley Rood of Grace written between 1538 and 1570 and argues that these accounts work to establish clear and exclusive categories of miracle and mimesis (theatre), categories still accepted today. Over time the Rood of Grace evolved in reformed descriptions into an elaborate, marionette-like puppet. By comparing the Rood to a puppet reformers exploited contemporary representations of puppet theatre as a ‘low’ entertainment that appealed only to the ignorant and the spiritually and sexually corrupt, suggesting that ‘miraculous’ images appealed to the same type of audience. This paper concludes by questioning the exclusivity of the categories of miracle and theatre insisted upon by Protestant reformers. Evidence suggests that in its original ritual context the Rood of Grace was read as both.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".