J. N. Hillgarth . The Visigoths in History and Legend . (Studies and Texts, number 166.) Toronto : Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies . 2009 . Pp. xii, 239. $80.00.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1843, thirteen years before documenting the introduction of the camel into the United States, George Perkins Marsh spoke to the Philomathesian Society of Middlebury College of another sort of Old World import: “It was the spirit of the Goth, that guided the May‐Flower across the trackless ocean; the blood of the Goth, that flowed at Bunker's Hill.” Marsh's Goths were symbols of liberty, prophets of the mixed constitution. A thousand years earlier, they were not quite so admired: a royal diploma of 812 blames the fall of the Visigothic kingdom to Islamic invaders in 711 on their “excessive arrogance”; in later centuries, they were accused of all manner of corruption and sexual depravity. From quite early, however, the Goths were adopted by successive Iberian (and Swedish!) royal houses as useful ancestors and by a wide range of writers as central to Spanish identity. In his new work, the eminent Hispanist J. N. Hillgarth offers a brisk survey of what we think we know about the historical Visigoths and what we know authors from the fourth to the twentieth century thought about them.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.019 |
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".