The Courts of the Prior and the Bishop of Durham in the Later Middle Ages
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
The operation of the common law in late medieval county Durham was characterized by several unique features. Among these were the independence of episcopal officials from interference from royal agents in the execution of the law, and the great variety of temporal courts found there. Within the lands of the palatinate, jurisdiction over suspects accused of felony was shared by both the bishop and the prior of Durham. The origins of this unusual division of judicial authority was an agreement dated c.1229, known as Le Convenit. It defined the relationship between the bishop, the temporal lord of the palatinate, and the prior of the Benedictine monastery in Durham who, as a landholder second only to the bishop, held a separate court for the suit of his free tenants. That relationship was often fraught with tension, for both lords were jealous of the prestige – and the revenues – incumbent on the exercise of judicial authority in their lands. This article examines the origins of Le Convenit, and the consequences of the agreement on criminal legal procedure in late medieval Durham. Successive priors of the monastery struggled tirelessly against the bishops to preserve the privileges they won in 1229, and Le Convenit remained throughout this period a potent weapon in their determination to give expression to lordly power and authority.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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