Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This book examines the nature of miracles in four centuries of records on the canonization of saints held in the Vatican Secret Archives and Library. The history of the canonization process is explained with special reference to the place of miracles within it. Separate chapters focus on the saints and their supplicants, the physicians, and the drama of the cure. A conclusion presents some parallels in the workings of religion and of medicine. The primary sources for this book are the records of testimony on more than 1,400 miracles gathered by clerics working within the official process for recognizing saints. More than 90 percent of these miracles are healings from diseases. The vast majority of the records include the personal accounts of the people healed (miraculé[e]s) and their treating or expert physicians. Presentation of the witnesses and their stories leads to an exploration of medicine and religion as semiotic traditions built around the experience of illness, healing, and death. This work intersects with histories of medicine, of religion, in its official and popular forms, and with the current debate on physical healing through spiritual means. Although the project is rooted in Roman Catholic traditions, it permits more general statements about the behaviors of sick people and the formal responses to suffering from religion, medicine, and, indeed, history.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".