Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Collectio Burdegalensis, originating in late eleventh-century Aquitaine, reveals a great deal about just how deeply church reforming legislation was embedded north of the Alps, and how it travelled there in the first place.By examining when, where, by whom, and how the Collectio Burdegalensis was made, this study re-evaluates the collection's place and value among other legal collections of the period, especially its relation to the so-called Poitevin canonistic tradition.It devotes considerable attention to the compiler's use and organisation of legal sources, examining the main texts of both manuscript representations and their associated appendices.Alongside the study, this book also contains a register of the Collectio Burdegalensis, representing for the first time the evidence of both extant manuscript copies (Mss Bordeaux, Bibliothèque municipale , fols.7r-7 v and Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek M.p.j.q., fols.v-96r), along with the hitherto uncalendared texts of the appendices to the collection.With this work, scholars will henceforth be able to reconstruct the juridical content of the collection, to cite the canons precisely, and to interpret them securely.It should also allow greater appreciation of the social, ecclesiastical, and legal forces that shaped the history of the late eleventh century.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.868 | 0.682 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".