Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a world where the tenets of inherited Christianity were probably not understood by the vast majority of the laity and only imperfectly by many clerics and monks, the complicated dogmas dealing with the nature of Christ that arose in the fourth and fifth centuries must have been incomprehensible to all but a very few – learned writers such as Gildas in Britain, Cummian in Ireland, and Aldhelm and Bede in England who show close acquaintance with the history of dogma. However, there are various indications that the Insular world did not entirely escape the effects of the heresies that cropped up on the continent between the fourth and seventh centuries. Writers on both islands took special pains to insist upon their orthodoxy, particularly in matters relating to the Trinity and to the nature of Christ. Involvement in these disputes – however marginal they may seem at first glance – played a role in shaping official theology, but perhaps more importantly, in defining the activities and concerns that constituted Insular Christology and the literary and artistic images of Christ to be examined here. Expressions of orthodoxy From the beginnings of Insular Christianity, prominent ecclesiastics were eager to demonstrate their freedom from all taint of heresy and show their solidarity with the central teachings of the Roman Church. This is embodied in the form of a ‘profession of faith’ – a more or less detailed statement of ‘correct’ beliefs which is sometimes coupled with anathematisations of heresies. The defensive character of these professions always relates to the individual claimant, but in some cases, as we shall see, there is a clear awareness on the part of the professing person that he is defending the beliefs and practices of his region. Moreover, such professions do not occur in a vacuum. Two of the three earliest professions – those of Pelagius and Columbanus – were addressed to popes; a third – that of Patrick – was sent to unnamed authorities in Britain. In all three cases we have to do with some charge of heresy, divergent practice, or misconduct. As we noted in our Introduction, praise of orthodoxy and the assertion of one’s own orthodoxy are not synonymous with being orthodox.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".