L’Ordre teutonique et la noblesse sicilienne, du XIIe au XVe siècle. The Teutonic Order and the Sicilian nobility from the 12th to the 15th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume : Cet article se concentre sur les relations etablies entre la noblesse sicilienne et l’Ordre teutonique, de la creation du baillage en 1197 a sa perte en 1492. Au cours de son histoire, le baillage sicilien de l’Ordre (la Magione) a su assurer sa survie au travers des multiples tribulations dynastiques que connut l’ile en s’associant parfois avec les grandes familles baronniales (Chiaramonte, Vintimiglia), souvent avec la petite noblesse locale. Une autre strategie importante et concomitante fut de developper sa confrerie, ainsi qu’un important reseau de clientele dans les villes ou il etait implante (Palerme, Agrigente, etc.). A la fin de la periode, l’importance du baillage etait telle que seuls les patrimoines des eglises de Palerme et de Monreale depassaient sa puissance economique en Sicile occidentale. Mots-cles: Ordre teutonique, Sicile, noblesse europeenne, ordres religieux-militaires, confrerie. Abstract: This article focuses on the relationships established between the Sicilian nobility and the Teutonic order, from the creation of the bailiwick in 1197 to his loss in 1492. During its history, the Sicilian bailiwick of the Ordre ( la Magione ) ensured its survival through the multiple dynastic tribulations by associating himself occasionally with the great baronial families (Chiaramonte, Ventimiglia), often with the local gentry. Another important and concomitant strategy was to develop its brotherhood, as well as an extensive network of clients in the cities where it was implanted (Palermo, Agrigento, etc.). At the end of the period, the importance of the Bailiwick was such that only the heritages of the churches of Palermo and Monreale exceeded its economic power in western Sicily. Key Words : Teutonic Ordre, Sicily, European nobility, Military Orders, Brotherhood.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".