MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223953032 · doi:10.26522/tg.v7i1.3642

Comparing Penitential Acts: Why the Flagellants of 1349 Were Condemned While Those in 1260 Were Not

2022· article· en· W4223953032 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Aimee Lowe-Martin

Bibliographic record

Venuethe general brock university Undergraduate journal of history · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Religious Studies of Rome
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenitentialKey (lock)HistoryLawPolitical scienceArchaeologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay looks at two different groups of Christian flagellants. The first, in 1260 AD, was given Church approval and became widespread. Less than one hundred years later, in 1349 AD and during the Black Death, another movement of Flagellants became widespread but was quickly condemned by the Church. This essay compares these two groups to investigate why they received different Papal responses. By using the available English sources of the time along with secondary source evidence, this essay highlights key differences between the Flagellants of 1260 and those in 1349 particularly drawing on their observed behaviours, public appearances, and their response to larger movements.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuethe general brock university Undergraduate journal of historySame topicHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeFrench-language works237,207