MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171372036 · doi:10.1017/9781107323742.038

Monastic Preaching and the Sermon in Medieval Latin Christendom to the Twelfth Century

2020· book-chapter· en· W3171372036 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy Baker, Beverly Mayne Kienzle

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSermonMonasticismCloisterBishopsDutyEleventhHistoryMedieval historyMiddle AgesTheologyClassicsAncient historyArtPhilosophyLawArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Christian preaching and the genre of the sermon developed both inside and outside the cloister, evolving as they circulated between secular and religious audiences. Whereas few monks (beyond the ones who became bishops) were ordained in the early centuries of Western monasticism, the difference between monks and secular clergy moved gradually to sharper definition in the eighth century, as more and more monks were being ordained. Debates intensified in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries over the duty and authorization for preaching by monks, particularly outside the monastery. While Jerome (347–420) had asserted that the duty of monks is “not to teach, but to weep,” Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075–1129), addressing his extensive biblical commentaries to prelates and monk-priests, argued forcefully that preaching stood first among their responsibilities. For Rupert, the impetus toward renewal and reform in the twelfth century rested upon correct and authorized preaching.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207