MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212788585 · doi:10.33137/rr.v41i3.31644

Provan, Iain. The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture

2018· article· en· W4212788585 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit (Université de Montréal) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PhilosophyNew RightHistoryArtLiteratureLinguisticsPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

comptes rendus 261 spaces, it was the stable sacramentality of crucifixes, frescoes, and altarpieces that consecrated confraternal oratories.Lay brothers aimed to capture that charism through patronage of all or some of this art and architecture, as we see in Rome (Kira Maye Albinsky), Rouen (Caroline Blondeau-Morizot), Florence (Douglas N. Dow), Palermo (Danielle Carrabino), and Seville (Ellen Alexandra Dooley).Any collection dedicated to exploring a new scholarly turn runs the risk of incoherence as the authors go, in Stephen Leacock's memorable phrase, "madly off in all directions." Editor Diana Bullen Presciutti has worked expertly to draw the authors and articles together, and to encourage a formal discipline that underscores their arguments and connections.A common bibliography incorporating archival and secondary sources makes this a valuable guide to the status quaestionis, while an extraordinary collection of well over one hundred maps and illustrations, many of them in colour, underscores the visual and sensory themes that connect the various pieces.Above all, they animate the central argument that tracing space, place, and motion are as important as measuring politics, kinship, and ritual when we aim to demonstrate the critical role that confraternities played in the social, physical, sensory, and psychic worlds of the early modern world.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.144 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit (Université de Montréal)Same topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207