Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historiquement parlant, les auteurs franciscains n’ont jamais hésité à emprunter à d’autres genres littéraires lorsque leurs ordres du jour spirituels pouvaient en bénéficier. Il n’est donc pas étonnant de constater que les traités franciscains de pèlerinage en Terre Sainte imitent certaines conventions stylistiques et rhétoriques des relazione (relations). Ce que les frères mendiants ont trouvé de particulièrement utile était la façon qu’avaient les relazione de se concentrer sur le siècle, et simultanément de placer l'auteur en position d’autorité en tant que témoin expert. Les auteurs franciscains pouvaient employer le style de narration du temporel des relazione comme repoussoir à la description du royaume du Christ. Tout comme dans les relazione, les traités franciscains ont également souligné l’expérience personnelle des frères mendiants en mission dans la patrie du Christ. Ces deux stratégies fonctionnaient de pair, afin de réaffirmer pour les lecteurs européens éloignés le pouvoir sacré de la Terre Sainte, ainsi que l’autorité spéciale des frères mendiants en tant que vrais apôtres du Christ.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.035 |
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".