‘Water mixed with the blood of Thomas’: contact relic manufacture pictured in Canterbury Cathedral’s stained glass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four remarkable stained glass panels in the Trinity Chapel of Canterbury Cathedral (executed c.1185–1220) picture the mixing of Thomas Becket’s blood with water at Becket’s tomb. The ‘water of St Thomas’ was among the most widely renowned medieval water relics, reputed to have healed the sick throughout Latin Christendom. This article examines the glass images, comparing them with narratives in the glaziers’ source text, Benedict of Peterborough’s collection of Becket’s miracles. The glaziers presented an enhanced and carefully designed version of the early history of the water relic: the visual images draw strong parallels between the water of St Thomas and the Eucharist, and trumpet the role of the monks of Christ Church Cathedral Priory, Canterbury, the patrons of the glass, in the mixing process. The glass panels also provide suggestive evidence regarding the personnel, vessels and ceremonial involved in the actual mixing of the relic at Canterbury, including the likely participation of a lay sacrist and the possible use of mazers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".