T<scp>ristan</scp> V<scp>igliano</scp>. <i>Parler aux musulmans: Quatre intellectuels face à l’Islam à l’ordee de la Renaissance</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traumatic middle decade of the fifteenth century, which saw the final collapse of the Byzantine Empire, also produced a constellation of writings by cleric-scholars on the future of Islamo-Christian relations. In Parler aux musulmans, the French literary scholar Tristan Vigliano examines the ways in which works by these politically engaged writers open a window onto “the dialogue of Christianity with Islam on the cusp of the Renaissance” (305). The question at the heart of the book, which is written for a nonspecialist audience, is whether real interreligious discussion was possible, or even desirable, in this transitional era. Vigliano explicitly states that his objective is only to examine the texts within their historical context; he is uninterested in overtly engaging either other scholars or the debates in the field, leaving interested experts to trace these in his detailed notes. The book is organized into four chapters, each dedicated to a different author, bookended by a useful introduction and conclusion. The first chapter examines the Débat du Chrétien et du Sarrasin, written in 1451 by Jean Germain, the bishop of Chalon. The text is written in the vernacular, which may indicate that it was intended for a lay, perhaps even courtly, Christian audience. The titular debate, such as it is, plays out over five books, and is, unsurprisingly, not a fair match, as Germain devotes less than a quarter of the text to an actual discussion of Islam. Vigliano reads the Débat as a metaphor for crusade, inspired by the culture of chivalry; thus victory in verbal sparring equates with triumph on an eventual battlefield. This is, in other words, debate as combat, with any real religious discourse a convenient fiction. Germain sees dialogue as impossible and undesirable; rather, his objective is to reaffirm Christians in their faith, and to mobilize them to action.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.010 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".