Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the sixteenth century, confessional disputes between Catholics and Protestants became the “battlefield” for determining and shaping the reformed Christian religion. Antiquarian erudition played a key role in this process, acting in accordance with the diverse cultural systems in place, justifying doctrinaire positions, and legitimizing the existence of their institutions. Renaissance chronotaxes illustrate this point particularly well. In this article, for the first time, the ecclesiastical chronotaxes disseminated to Christian scholarly environments throughout Renaissance Europe have been collated and studied. Both the driving forces behind this cultural phenomenon and the methods applied are investigated. The key objective here is to present the first catalogue of these works and to offer valuable material that sheds further light on the cultural, historical, and religious dynamics of the time, which may serve as the basis for further academic debate.
 Pendant le seizième siècle, les disputes confessionnelles entre catholiques et protestants sont devenues le champ où s'est déroulée la bataille qui donna naissance et forme à la religion chrétienne réformée. L’érudition antiquisante a joué un rôle majeur à ce stade, comme référence commune partagée par les différents systèmes culturels qui s'affrontaient, qui permettait de justifier des positions doctrinales et de légitimer l’existence des diverses institutions confessionnelles. Les chronotaxes de la Renaissance en sont un exemple idéal. Dans cet article, pour la première fois, sont colligées et étudiées les chronotaxes ecclésiastiques, qui se sont répandues dans les milieux chrétiens érudits de l’Europe de la Renaissance. On examine à la fois les sources de ce phénomène culturel, et les méthodes de leur application. L’objectif principal de cette étude est de présenter le premier catalogue de ce phénomène, ainsi que plusieurs renseignements éclairant certaines dynamiques culturelles, historiques et religieuses de l’époque. Cela pose les bases pour la poursuite de recherches sur ce sujet.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".