Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptualizing Hildegard of Bingen as a theologian has been impeded by a pervading focus on her visionary status. The author provides a fruitful reassessment of Hildegard’s theology by contextualizing her writings along three coordinates: the authoritative texts she cites, the institutional environment in which theological discussion takes place, and the audience to whom the theology is directed. Her responsibility as magistra of her community led her to construct her trilogy of visions – Scivias, Liber vitae meritorum, and Liber divinorum operum – not just as visionary writings for the broader church but as a structured theological system to aid her nuns pedagogically. Analysis of her writings reveals a systematic methodology of theological instruction, including her use of classical rhetoric; additionally, her concerns for her nuns’ spiritual welfare are reflected in a customized presentation of theological topics. Ultimately, understanding Hildegard’s theology as a direct response to her immediate community reframes it and highlights its similarities to twelfth-century methods of theological instruction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".