Regionale forskelle på udmøntning og møntbrug i Danmark ca. 1050-ca. 1500
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A system of regular mints was introduced into Denmark during the reign of Cnut (c. 1018-35). It is evident that the coins from Jutland were struck to a lighter standard (c. 3/ 4 gram) than the coins in Eastern Denmark (Scania and Sealand) (c. 1 gram). The difference is upheld during most of the 11th century and well into the 12th century, culminating, so to say, with the small bracteates of Northern Jutland in the middle of the 12th century, weighing between a fifth and a quarter of a gram. In the 13th century there were several mints in the country, Scania, Sealand, Northern and Southern Jutland, but in the middle of the century there is a growing tendency to strike better coins at the mint of Lund than in the rest of the country. This is expressed in the strife between the archbishop of Lund and the king in 1298. The archbishop expresses his wish to have the Scanian denars struck to the same standard as the denier tournois. The archbishop was apparently successful in his argumentation, and the Lund coinage would seem to have been struck to this standard till the mint was closed in the 1370s, the other Danish mints striking a very debased coinage until they were closed after the death of King Christoffer II in 1332. In the early 15th century Danish mints were established again, but the minting of the widespread copper sterlings c. 1420-c.1430/35 took place at four mints, one in each major province, Scania, Sealand, Funen and Jutland (Lund, Naestved, Odense and Randers). Apparently it is only a question of logistics which makes the establishing of the four mints important, as there is nothing to indicate any regional differences in the standard or fineness. In most of the 2nd half of the 15th century only one mint existed, that of Malmo, but late in the century mints were established both in Copenhagen and Aalborg. Here again it rather seems to be a question of rational distribution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.234 | 0.126 |
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".