Disciplining Brothers in the Seventeenth-Century Jesuit Province of Aragon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies the leave-taking process in the Society of Jesus’ Province of Aragon. According to the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and decrees of General Congregation 7, the community could decide to dismiss a Jesuit or an individual could request to depart. Provincial and Roman authorities consulted about leave-takings. Although Ignatius of Loyola favoured immediate dismissal of misbehaving men, by the seventeenth century the process had evolved. As archival references demonstrate, the religious community developed atonement processes, including confinement, for wayward Jesuits in the hopes of reforming poor comportment. Cet article analyse le système mis en place de la Compagnie de Jésus concernant les congés et renvois dans la Province d’Aragon. Selon les Constitutions de la Compagnie de Jésus et les décrets de la Congrégation Générale 7, la congrégation pouvait décider de renvoyer un jésuite ou un particulier pouvait faire la démarche de demander un congé de la communauté. Les autorités romaines et provinciales se consultaient au sujet des renvois et congés. Bien qu’Ignace de Loyola préférât le renvoi immédiat des hommes de mauvaise conduite, le système évolua à partir du dix-septième siècle. Comme le révèle les archives de la Société, la Compagnie de Jésus développa des procédures pour l’expiation, parmi lesquels la détention, pour les jésuites réfractaires dans l’espoir de réformer leur mauvaise conduite.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".