Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explains the significance of Hildegard of Bingen’s letter collection for her public career and for understanding why she wrote letters, why editors collected them, and why readers desired to receive them. It places the letters into the larger context of letter-writing in the twelfth century; like her contemporaries, Hildegard saw letters as the most effective way to publicize her work, but the prophetic style in which she wrote them made them unique and particularly desirable for correspondents. The chapter describes how editors and collaborators gathered her letters into a formal, edited collection that would serve as a record of the widespread and beneficial impact of her prophecy and examines the relationship between Hildegard and her correspondents. The incoming letters reveal that people from all walks of life looked to Hildegard as a source of life-changing spiritual power, while Hildegard’s responses show her wielding that power in a responsible and orthodox manner. The chapter argues that Hildegard’s letter collection offers a unique perspective on the seer, one that brings us closer to the experience of her prophetic career than any other part of her corpus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".