Bibliographic record
Abstract
METHOD S ix of bringing an end to proceedings involving the Faith is when the person denounced for heretical depravity, after a careful examination of the merits of the proceedings with a good panel of legal experts, is found to be violently suspected of heresy. This is when the denounced person is not found to be legally caught by his own confession or by evidence of the deed or by the lawful production of witnesses, but there are indications that are not merely light or vehement but very strong and very violent ones that rightly render the denounced person violently suspected of this heresy and because of which such a person ought to be judged as someone violently suspected of this heresy. In order for this method to be more clearly understood, let us give illustrations concerning both simple heresy and the Heresy of Sorceresses. In simple heresy, this would be the case when the denounced person is not found to be legally caught by his own confession and so on as above, but because of something that he said or did. For instance, when after being summoned in a case not involving the Faith he endured excommunication for a year or more, he is now suspected lightly of heresy because this does not lack a disconcerting suggestion of heretical depravity (“Penalties,” Chapter “ Gravem ”). If, when summoned to give answer | concerning the Faith, he does not appear but contumaciously refuses to do so, he is for this reason excommunicated. In this case, he becomes vehemently suspected of heresy, since the light suspicion turns into a vehement one. If he endures such excommunication for a year with an obstinate frame of mind, then he becomes violently suspected, since the vehement suspicion turns into a violent one against which no defense is admitted. Indeed, from then on such a person is to be condemned as a heretic, as is explained in Chapter “ Cum contumacia ” (Liber Sextus) and the notes on that passage.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.010 |
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".