Coronation Studies: Past, Present, and Future: Thirty Years Later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume of essays with the title Coronations: Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual published in 1990 by the University of California Press, [henceforth: Corohations ] offered a selection of works in “coronation studies” in the later twentieth century, most of which had been presented at a conference in Toronto in 1985. At that meeting, we attempted to address the subject in the widest sense of the term, meaning inquiries into the different symbolic and ritual acts that served both to legitimate and to present monarchical rule in the Middle Ages and the ancien réme. 1 The selection reflected, without claim to be comprehensive, the variety of topics treated by students of rulership and the character of the pre-modern state, including their different methods of approach and the distinct types of sources used as evidence. Many of the articles addressed an agenda that has been with us for over a century, ever since historians began to scrutinize events surrounding the accession of rulers and the writings associated with it: establishing authentic readings for those liturgical scripts — ordines — which guided the actors of the rites; dating these texts; and interpreting their formulae in terms of continuity or change, of native roots and borrowings, of politics, theology, and ritual. Other studies treated the general context of the ceremonies, their constitutional, ideological, and propagandists place in medieval politics. Again, others looked at the changes in royal ritual during the early modern centuries, both in form and meaning. One paper explicitly (others more implicitly) explored the historiography of the field, placing it in the context of modern political and intellectual history. Several authors, moreover, departed from traditional procedures, which were characterized by textual scrutiny and iconoeraphical analysis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".