Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 4 August 1029, Adémar departed Limoges in disgrace and returned to his home abbey of Saint Cybard in Angoulême. There, he spent the next few years compiling the forgeries he hoped would eventually provide incontrovertible evidence of Martial's apostolic status. The most notable among these are the proceedings of the Council of Limoges in 1031 and the letter from Pope John XIX, both of which survive in Adémar's autograph and unequivocally endorse Martial as an apostle. He also devoted some of his time to the production of music manuscripts, as the fragmentary antiphoner in the endpapers of Pa 1978 and the addition to Pa 1118, discussed in Chapter 2 above, show. As well, he altered the liturgy for Martial in Pa 1120 and 1121. He passed his last years at Saint Cybard friendless in lonely isolation. When he resolved to quit this difficult situation in Angoulême and to assuage his guilt by embarking on pilgrimage for Jerusalem, he decided to leave his library behind at Saint Martial. There, some years after his death, a sympathetic monk entered the following colophon in the most elaborate codex he had produced, Lei 8° 15. Hic est liber sanctissimi domni nostri Marcialis lemouicensis ex libris bonae memoriae Ademari grammatici. Nam postquam idem multos annos peregit in domini seruicio, ac simul in monachico ordine in eiusdem patris coenobio, profecturus Hierusalem ad sepulchrum domini nec inde reuersurus, multos libros in quibus sudauerat eidem suo pastori ac nutritori reliquid ex quibus hic est unus. (This is the book of our most holy lord Martial of Limoges, from the books of Adémar the grammarian of good memory. For after he spent many years in the service of the Lord, and at the same time in the monastic order in the monastery of the same father, about to set out for Jerusalem to the sepulchre of the Lord, nor would he return from there, he left behind for the same pastor, his own, and the one who nurtured him, many books on which he had laboured, from which this is one.)
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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".