Siena Quattrocentesca: Gli anni del Pellegrinaio nell’Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the fifth chapter, Mayer examines the procedures followed by the Inquisition as it moved through the stages of the process known as inquisitio, including denunciation, preliminary investigation, citation, interrogation, repetition, defence, and sentence.He bases this analysis on over twenty sources left by medieval and early modern inquisitors and canonists, most notably Francisco Peña, Pietro Follerio, and Prospero Farinacci.His discussion is intricate and at times technical, with point and counterpoint provided from the wide number of commentators.Mayer's book, detailed and balanced in its arguments and buttressed by an incredible number of endnotes, will appeal more to the specialist in studies of the Italian courts than to the generalist, but is nevertheless a worthy addition to the scholarship on the Inquisition.It will serve as a handbook of information on previously little-known members of the Inquisition and on the inner workings of the secretive and much maligned institution.A number of his points require further research, such as his claim that the Congregation of the Holy Office became the single most important instrument of the papal bureaucracy, used by the popes "in just about any way that pleased them" (11).Mayer promises to follow this book with a study of the relations of the Roman Inquisition with Venice, Florence, and Naples, and a new analysis of the trial of Galileo.To judge from the expertise demonstrated in this book, they too will be welcome additions to our knowledge of the personnel and procedures of the Holy Office.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.007 |
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".