Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drawing on a wide variety of evidence, including letters, charters, indulgences, poems, miracle stories, relic lists, and a stained-glass panel in Canterbury Cathedral, this essay examines how the monks of Reading Abbey reacted to the controversy between King Henry II and Thomas Becket in the late 1160s and the beginning of Becket’s cult in the 1170s and 1180s. Reading Abbey was founded and richly endowed by Henry II’s grandfather, Henry I. William the Templar, abbot of Reading from 1168–73, was, unsurprisingly, on the side of Henry II and Becket’s opponents. The sympathies of the prior of Reading and of at least one Reading monk, however, were with Becket’s supporters. After Becket’s death, this dissension continued. Abbot William banned pilgrimage to Canterbury, orders that his monks circumvented. Abbot William’s successor, Abbot Joseph (1173–86), had a very different outlook. He promoted Becket’s cult to an extraordinary degree, despite the fact that Reading Abbey was in possession of an important relic, the Hand of St James, which had been placed at Reading by the king himself. The story of Reading Abbey’s relationship with Thomas Becket provides new perspectives on the factionalism triggered by the Becket controversy, the strength of Becket’s early cult, and the devotional history of a major English Benedictine abbey.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".