MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W345389935 · doi:10.3138/cjh.43.2.217

God’s Wrath against the Wrathful in Medieval Mendicant Preaching

2008· article· en· W345389935 on OpenAlex
Marc B. Cels

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatienceRage (emotion)AngerForbearanceHonourLawPrerogativePhilosophyTheologyClassicsHistoryPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medieval depictions of God’s wrath seem to run counter to Christian exhortations to patience and meekness. Such representations, however, not only sought to discourage anger but also deliberately expanded social norms governing the emotion. Latin moral treatises and preaching manuals written by Franciscan and Dominican friars in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries reveal how preachers presented the abstract moral teachings of scholastic authors in more concrete and familiar terms. Moralists taught that anger was a sin because it usurped God’s prerogative to punish wrongdoing. Preachers presented God as a medieval patriarch, jealously defending his personal honour and his dependants from assault. Divine judgment was frequently represented as fire because it evoked the physical sensation of rage as well as the hell-fire that awaited the damned. Friars also presented God as a model of patience and mercy. In doing so, they extended social norms that encouraged forbearance and rewarded those who could control their temper.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.175 · 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