The Fifteenth-Century Councils: Francisco de Vitoria, Melchor Cano, and Bartolomé Carranza
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dominican theologian Francisco de Vitoria, founder of the School of Salamanca, was cautiously positive about general councils as useful to the church. However, he was not supportive of the strong conciliarism of the University of Paris. Vitoria’s successor at Salamanca, Melchor Cano, was much more a papalist, an opinion partially shared by Bartolomé Carranza, who attended the opening sessions of the Council of Trent (1545–63) and became archbishop of Toledo. Both Cano and Carranza rejected any claim to conciliar power over a reigning pope, although Carranza wrote more favourably about councils than did Cano. Their criticisms of the fifteenth-century councils of Constance (1414–18) and Basel (1431–49) foreshadowed the categorization of councils by Robert Bellarmine based on loyalty to the papacy. All of these theologians shared the belief that the ideal council was that of Ferrara–Florence (1438–45), which was summoned and directed by a pope.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".