MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480961310 · doi:10.33137/rr.v32i3.11581

From Personal Duties Towards Personal Rights: Late Medieval and Early Modern Political Thought, 1300-1600

2009· article· en· W2480961310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arthur P. Monahan, Janice Liedl

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholasticismPoliticsHumanismSchismConstitutionalismTolerationLawPhilosophyHumanitiesMartyrClassicsReligious studiesHistoryTheologyPolitical scienceDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume is the second in a series by Monahan chronicling the history of political thought in western Europe.Although the subtide indicates that this is supposed to be a broad history of political thought covering the period, 1 300-1600, that is not the case.This is a group of thematic approaches to Renaissance and Reformation intellectual history that, while having some interesting aspects, is not a comprehensive study.To understand the problems of From Personal Duties Towards Personal Rights, you must put it into the context of Monahan' s overall series.According to the introduction, there is at least one further volume planned in the series that began with Consent, Coercion and Limit: The Medieval Origins of Parliamentary Democracy (1987).This first work examined the medieval poHtical tradition, with special emphasis on the twelfth through fourteenth centuries.Monahan' s theme, as stated in the subtitle, was to trace the development of parliamentary democracy, not to survey the entire medieval political tradition.Consent, Coercion and Limit covered a considerable amount of material that might reasonably be expected to appear in the second book, so scholars who are not aware of Monahan's first volume would find some disturbing lacunae if the second volume is read alone.(For instance, Marsilius of Padua, who appears as a marginal figure in From Personal Duties Towards Personal Rights, is featured prominently along with other fourteenth- century thinkers in the penultimate section of Consent, Coercion and Limit).Similarly, as Monahan intends to continue this series in a third volume "whose primary focus will be theories of policy that are recognizably 'scientific'" (p. 1 1) the cut-off date of 1600 is deceptive.Some important figures from the sixteenth century, Jean Bodin among them, are absent from this study.While the author's justification for doing so seems sound, their absence is unexpected given the tide's promise.From Personal Duties Towards Personal Rights also lacks the sharp focus of the first volume.Where earlier Monahan kept to the history of parliamentary democracy, in this volume he attempts to cover a number of approaches.He has abandoned the chronological approach of Consent, Coercion and Limit, where he treated the parliamentary thinkers century by century.From Personal Duties Towards Personal Rights favours a multi-thematic treatment of the material.Topics including civic republicanism, constitutionalism and the Reformation are useful organizing principles for the chapters, though, as Monahan admits, there are awkward gaps left to fill, as evinced by the separate section devoted to the Spanish neo-scholasdcs such as Vitoria and Suarez while also attempting to integrate humanist Juan Luis Vives into the same analysisa less-than-successful proposition.Discussion of a few individual thinkers and their works constitutes the bulk of each section, after Monahan provides a broad context for that school of political thought.By arranging his material in thematic sections, Monahan categorizes the political thinkers into pigeonholes which are not

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207