Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the famous “Chanson de Roland,” the repeated line Paiens ont tort e chrestien ont dreit – “Pagans are wrong and Christians are right” – has long been taken in scholarship as the standard for Christian views of Muslims in the Middle Ages: Saracens may be the equal of Christians in martial prowess, piety, honour, valour, and every other value worthy of a medieval knight, but they are wrong, and that is the only thing that matters. Matt Gillis, in his essay “Reinterpreting Saracen Alterity as a Proto-Christian Community,” aims to complicate this critical commonplace. In his analysis of the King of Tars , a Middle English Romance, Matt shows the difference between Christian and Saracen is not just that one is right and the other is wrong, but that there is a difference in attitude towards faith and belief. For the Christians in the story, faith is an interior state, dependent more on internal belief than outward acts; the Saracens’ faith, by contrast, is portrayed as mere show, conformity to outward appearances rather than inward conviction. This analysis casts new light on the figure of the Christian princess’ horrifically deformed – or rather, unformed – baby: Matt shows the baby is not simply a manifestation of the monstrous, but is a material signifier of the superficial nature of Saracen belief. Dr. Kathy Cawsey
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".