Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emily Michelson's new book brings to light the efforts of men who were "on the front lines of a more desperate war than anything they had ever imagined" as western Christendom splintered-Italian preachers who gave and published sermons in the vernacular (1).As Michelson argues, these preachers, both mendicants and secular clergy ranging from bishops to parish priests, found themselves battling what they believed (often wrongly) was widespread heresy.As the vernacular sermon was the only part of Catholic services most laity would understand, they agonized over what to say and not say in an attempt to prevent apostasy and bring potential heretics back into the fold.Michelson's excellent volume engages in several of the debates that have recently developed about how historians understand the reform of Catholicism in the early modern period.Through a combination of social, intellectual, and religious histories, and using a variety of sources largely ignored by Anglophone historians (including sermon books, treatises, and pamphlets), she argues for a much more complicated and multivalent picture of reform.Nothing was clear
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".