An authority among authorities: knowledge and use of Augustine in the wider Carolingian world
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What knowledge of Augustine might a Carolingian subject outside the ecclesiastical elite have possessed? If the all‐pervasive influence of Augustine is one of the hallmarks of the Carolingian era, how far into the Carolingian world did that influence (and conscious knowledge of it as ‘Augustinian’) actually extend? Toward preliminary answers to these questions, this study will consider the presence and various uses of Augustine in textual media that may have reached beyond elite, court‐connected circles, arguing that from such texts Augustine would indeed have been known to ordinary Carolingian Christians, although mainly as one key source of traditional authority operating in fundamental harmony with other such authorities, rather than as a singular figure within the imagination of the Latin Christian west. This ubiquitous emphasis on ostensible agreement among the great authorities of the Christian past should be understood as intimately connected to the Carolingians’ efforts at effecting concord and unity in the broader social sphere of the present .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it