MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3112076907 · doi:10.1017/9781316823255.012

Purgatory’s Intercessors: Bishops, Ghosts, and Angry Wives

2020· book-chapter· en· W3112076907 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Moreira

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurgatoryBishopsArtTheologyPhilosophyLiteratureLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early medieval West, purgatory was an idea in the process of formation in Christian thought. Formal teachings on purgatory were long preceded by stories in which imperilled souls sought and received intercession that allowed them to repent and rest in peace. Early medieval writings show that a wide variety of people could intercede for both the living and the dead. Ghost stories, family stories, and the idea of the communion of saints combined to consolidate purgatory and post-mortem purification of souls in medieval Christian thought.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicMedieval Literature and History→French-language works237,207→