MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197824161 · doi:10.3138/flor-34.005

Ciceronian Ethos and Clerical Masculinity in the Regensburg Rhetorical Letters

2021· article· en· W3197824161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosRhetorical questionMasculinityRhetoricSociologyAestheticsIdentity (music)Gender studiesLiteratureArtPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Regensburg Rhetorical Letters are fictional letters composed in the 1080s at the Regensburg cathedral school. They imitate Ciceronian texts to fashion a valorized masculine identity based in learning, eloquence, and public service for secular clerics in civil administration who were attacked for idleness and effeminacy by reformers like Peter Damian. Centering textual and rhetorical expertise, the Letters reveal the heterogeneity of clerical society and an early development of a professional rather than spiritual role for the clergy.

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)0.004
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 venueFlorilegiumSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207