신의 평화운동의 역할과 그 역사적 의미: 샤루 공의회에서 클레르몽 공의회까지
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Peace of God's Role and Its Historical Significance from the Council of Charroux to That of Clermont Jeong-Min Lee During the final quarter of the tenth century, the peace of God that was first proclaimed in Aquitaine and Burgundy was especially developed with Franc as center. It was brought forth by the church not only for the sake of protecting the defenseless against the violence but also for the sake of reconfirming to prohibit the armed from pillaging the possessions and the domestic animals. Furthermore, during 1030s and 1040s it was extended to the truce of God that endeavored to stop all violence making a pause momentarily. For seeking to propagate the movement of peace, the church made an attempt to forbid violence on the list of certain days and seasons. This article designs to examiner that the tradition of peace and the christian ethics, accomplished by the peace and truce of God, had constantly influenced to the formation of ideology for the first crusade, as well as, it aims to catch the peace of God's role and its historical significance. To answering it, in first, we suggest to make out the peace of God's character and its role to settle the impending demand by the church that made efforts to reestablish the social structure and to reinforce its authority. Secondly, we will regarder the peace of God's development including the truce of God as the movement of peace. Lastly, we try to observer the speech of pope Urbanus II in Clermont for the purpose of testifying the consistence through the movement of peace from the council of Charroux to that of Clermont. It is certainly said that the peace and truce of God played an important part in France where the reformed papacy was accepted without any particular resistance. In considering preaching of the first crusader at Clermont, it is possible to say that pope Urbanus II must be inspired by the movement of the peace of God. (Gyeongsang National University / poohcrescentia@hanmail.net)
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".