MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133053593 · doi:10.7202/1074683ar

French Wisdom at the Serbian Medieval Court

2021· article· en· W3133053593 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Darko M. Krstić

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicByzantine Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerbianArchbishopQueen (butterfly)ReignClassicsHistoryAdjudicationAncient historyArtLiteratureLawPhilosophyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serbian Archbishop Daniel II (ca 1270-1337) described the Vitae of the medieval Serbian rulers from the Nemanjic dynasty. Among these royal hagio-biographies, the presentation of the life of Queen Helen of Anjou stands out since she is the only woman whose life was inspirational enough for Daniel II to incorporate it into the sequence of rulers and archbishops of medieval Serbia. In his picture of Queen Helen, Daniel II heavily employs various wisdom motifs from the Bible, especially from the Book of Proverbs. Prov 31,1-9 occupies a very prominent place as the background for Queen Helen’s long admonition to her sons and future kings, Dragutin and Milutin. Daniel II emphasizes the main point of the motherly admonition in Prov 31,1-9 - the just adjudication of deprived people - to suit the historical milieu of the Serbian court by underlining the importance of just judgment for Helen’s sons, the future kings. Nevertheless, at the same time, Daniel II does not develop a copy-paste reception of Prov 31,1-9 into his writing but consciously omits those elements of the instruction of Prov 31,1-9 (especially the warning against relationships with numerous women) which might appear to criticize the multiple marriages of King Milutin during his long reign (1282-1321).

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.223
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThéologiquesSame topicByzantine Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207