<i>The Lives of Saint Constantina: Introduction, Translations, and Commentaries</i>. Edited by <scp>Marco Conti</scp>, <scp>Virginia Burrus</scp> and <scp>Dennis Trout</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the heart of hagiographic research lies the dossier, texts that modern scholars have gathered together as the definitive collection of sources for a particular saint. The learned group known as the Bollandists assembled dossiers on a grand scale—in over 60 folio volumes of their Acta sanctorum. Hippolyte Delehaye, perhaps the most famous member, thought dossiers were so important that he devoted a chapter of his Les légendes hagiographiques (Brussels, 1905) to the subject. Such studies open up a method arising from the dossier itself: a collection of critically edited texts on a specific holy person offers a way of discovering how past Christian communities constructed a saint. When the sources are plentiful, spanning generations and regions, the record of this construction can reveal a cult’s development at different times and places. In short, the dossier maps a world of veneration. With ongoing research this world may expand to include not only texts newly discovered, but also the iconography and material artefacts of saintly commemoration. The authors of the book under review give a superb demonstration of the dossier’s potential for scholarly investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.026 |
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".