Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper outlines in historiographical perspective Paul Meyvaert (1921–2015) and Paul Devos’ (1913–1995) contributions to the classification of the Latin hagiographical legends about Sts Cyril and Methodius. The author analyzes their three joint studies from 1955–1956. These studies first introduced into academic use the most comprehensive medieval copy of the so-called Italian legend discovered to date. They also explored its links to the literary activity of Leo of Ostia (1046–1115). Through P.Meyvaert’s fortuitous discovery, the two scholars proved that only the second redaction of the Italian Legend has survived. As a result of their research, they narrowed down the chronological limits of the appearance of its first redaction, compiled by Johannes Hymmonides and Gauderic of Velletri. They studied the manuscript tradition (of the Italian Legend) and proved that the reference to the episcopal rank of St Cyril and St Methodius is a late interpolation in the text. They established what influence Leo of Ostia ‘s redaction of the Italian Legend exerted on the literary production in the Benedictine monastery of San Clemente a Casauria in the last quarter of the 12th century and on some legendaries containing abridged legendae novae of the 13th and 14th centuries. P. Meyvaert and P. Devos also attempted to clarify the place of the so-called Moravian legend in the nexus of Latin Cyrillo-Methodian legends of the Bohemian lands. The paper discusses the contributions of Meyvaert and Devos from the perspective of the development of Cyrillo-Methodian studies. It analyses the main approaches used for the successful solutions to age-old issues and the hypotheses that provoked debate with Jaroslav Ludvikovský.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".