Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hildegard of Bingen’s reputation for expertise in medicine was established not during her lifetime but after her death, with the compilation of Physica and Cause et cure by her secretaries and nuns at Rupertsberg. These works arranged and supplemented materials collected and composed by Hildegard. While described by early witnesses as works on medicine, they are not entirely typical of twelfth-century medical writing. Physica is an encyclopedia of the natural world, and Cause et cure an extended meditation on the consequences and remedies for the fall of the human race. Yet both works reveal Hildegard’s familiarity with current scientific and medical theory, as well as principles of secular healing practice. As her medieval readers affirmed, her visionary message was fully compatible with, and amplified in significance by, medical teachings based on Greco-Roman sources. This chapter explores this convergence of spiritual meaning and medical erudition in both works and examines the reception of Hildegard as a ‘medical writer’ in the later Middle Ages and early modern periods, and the ways in which this identity has been used by humanistic and alternative medical movements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".