Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crucial question for this exploration is: how could ordinary citizens (Gemeine), who had no chance of becoming members of the city-council, be incorporated into a common decision-making-process in the Late Middle Ages? In the background of this specific research-question lie the fundamental criteria for the ideal of urban peace and common good (gemein Gut) as an ideal vision of community. The following examples are primarily from Franconia, an area which had neither a unifying territory nor a supreme ruler. Instead, it was dominated by a multitude of different secular and spiritual rulers with many castles, monasteries and towns/citie. The town’s community was organized into neighborhoods, suburbs, quarters. Therefore, the quartermasters (Viertelsmeister) played an important role as speaker or representatives of the quarters or suburbs. The variety of possible duties for quartermasters were enormous. The quartermasters as representatives of the quarter communities were, for example, questioned by the council when it came to socio-politically sensitive issues. Mentioning the quartermasters and the community during the Peasants War is not coincidental but tells us a lot about the crisis of confidence of the city council by the citizens. A few hints should demonstrate the political influence of quartermasters in Franconian cities and towns as an example for future comparable research projects.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".