MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000323777 · doi:10.7202/1066359ar

Alfonso de Madrigal and Juan de Segovia: Some Conciliar Common (and Contested) Places

2019· article· en· W3000323777 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Iberian Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyHumanitiesFifteenthOrder (exchange)ArtSociologyHistoryClassicsLawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers a preliminary comparison of the thoughts of Alfonso de Madrigal and Juan de Segovia, two important fifteenth-century Spanish academics and authors whom scholars have seen as ideological allies. It identifies several areas of interest common to both writers, and then focuses on their conciliarist views. It argues that while Madrigal and Segovia both asserted several conciliar “common places,” often in similar terms, their ecclesiological positions differed in significant ways. Madrigal’s “theoretical” conciliarism is contrasted with Segovia’s “engaged” conciliarism in order to illuminate the notable differences in their respective careers and influence. The article concludes with a call for closer comparative study of these two wide-ranging thinkers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it