Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The making of this edition has been protracted and thanks are due to many individuals and institutions.For reading and commenting on the text of the edition, our early gratitude goes to A.G. Rigg who read closely, corrected profusely, and made many helpful suggestions for our initial drafts of the Book of Visions and the Book of Prayers; also to Charles Burnett, who likewise read closely, corrected generously, and made many suggestions for the Old Compilation Book of Figures.Our more recent and special gratitude goes to Christopher McDonough, the reader for the press, who went over what we mistakenly thought was our final draft of the edition with a fine tooth comb, checking page by page against base manuscripts both in text and variants, carding out errors, drawing our attention to inconsistencies, suggesting solutions to problems, and turning up many nuggets of paleographical evidence along the way.His thoroughness went far beyond mere error correction.His reading not only provided many kinds of opportunities to improve our presentation of the evidence, but also gave us a deeper sense of the work itself.We remain profoundly grateful for his willingness to engage so deeply with our project in the last months of its completion.Others have assisted us over the years by sharing their historical, liturgical, paleographical and legal expertise.Richard Kieckhefer was much involved in our first encounter with John's text in the McMaster manuscript in Hamilton; it was he who recalled the passage in the Grandes Chroniques de France that records the burning of what turned out to be the Liber florum.He has continued to support us as we moved towards the editing of John's work.Frank Klaassen was also involved at an early stage; he gave assistance with the search for manuscripts of Liber florum and lent us digital reproductions of manuscripts of John's potential sources.To Sylvie Barnay we owe thanks for hospitality in Paris and for kindly sending us a copy of her book on apparitions of the Virgin, with its discussion of John.Julien Véronèse
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it