The Arts of Editing Medieval Greek and Latin. A Casebook , éd. Elisabet Göransson , Gunilla Iversen , Barbara Crostini , Brian M. Jensen , Erika Kihlman , Eva Odelman, Denis Searby , Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2016 ; 1 vol., xix –452 p. ( Studies and Texts , 203). ISBN : 978-0-88844-203-1. Prix : € 65,00.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La montée en puissance des ordres militaires et mendiants dans les trois provinces ecclésiastiques provençales à partir du xiiie siècle est traditionnellement présentée comme un coup porté à l’influence de l’Église séculière, des prélats et des chapitres cathédraux, dans des contextes géopolitiques locaux et régionaux complexes et changeant. Plusieurs exemples tirés d’un corpus de sources ecclésiastiques encore largement inédites montrent que les relations entre les communautés religieuses sont souvent houleuses : celles-ci prennent régulièrement la forme de conflits parfois longs et d’arbitrages entre les différentes composantes du clergé provençal autour du partage des droits funéraires entre chaque communauté, de la répartition des revenus afférents à l’administration de la mort ou encore de la prise en charge des défunts et la célébration de leur mémoire. À travers le prisme des activités funéraires, il s’agit de questionner cette idée de concurrence et même de rivalité entre les communautés.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".