Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outside the Rhineland, Hildegard of Bingen’s twelfth-century contemporaries knew her primarily as a visionary. Even today, when she is studied as a musician, theologian, linguist, and naturalist, interest in her visions is still strong in both academic and popular circles. This chapter places her visions in the context of twelfth-century Christian visionary activity, where they were remarkable but far from unique, and then traces their distinctive use and transformation by successive generations of readers up to the present day. Even as many of Hildegard’s works fell into disuse, her best-known visions and her reliable reputation as a trustworthy visionary – sometimes attached to visions written by others – remained popular. The visionary Hildegard reappeared again and again: in fourteenth-century debates over prophetic authority, in sixteenth-century broadsides on church reform, in twentieth- and twenty-first-century appeals to medievalism, New Age spirituality, feminism, and ecotheology. Whether Hildegard’s enthusiasts viewed her as a critic or a champion of the institutional church, they were always certain that her visions had something valuable to offer their present moment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".