Bibliographic record
Abstract
The writings of martyrs have been at the centre of the history of Reformation-era Anabaptism since the sixteenth century itself, and scholars have long used them as sources of information about a persecuted and typically clandestine community. Based on a rare confluence in the surviving source material—a martyr’s prison letter and a repentant Anabaptist’s request for pardon that provide two different narratives of closely related events—this article reframes martyrological narratives as stories that reveal much about the subjectivity of their authors and the ways in which they shaped the early history of Anabaptism. At the same time, pardon tales can introduce new perspectives into historical narratives that were, over the course of centuries, inscribed as truth through communal practices of singing and reading. Les écrits de martyrs ont été au centre de l’histoire de l’anabaptisme de la période de la Réforme dès le début du XVIe, et la recherche les a longtemps utilisés comme documents sur une communauté persécutée et typiquement clandestine. À partir d’une convergence remarquable entre les sources qui nous sont parvenues — la lettre d’un martyr emprisonné et la requête de pardon d’un anabaptiste repentant, donnant toutes deux un récit comparable des événements — cet article montre que ces récits de martyrs peuvent être revus de façon à révéler la subjectivité de leurs auteurs dans leur récit des débuts de l’anabaptisme. Simultanément, les récits de pardon peuvent amener une nouvelle perspective sur les récits de nature historique, et qui ont acquis, avec le temps, à travers les pratiques du chant et de la lecture en communauté, valeur de vérité.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".