Between Orders and Heresy: Rethinking Medieval Religious Movements, ed. Jennifer Kolpacoff Deane and Anne E. Lester
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religion has always played a central role in studies of the Middle Ages, but conceptions of its influence have recently shifted away from the portrayal of institutionalised religion as a hegemonic and oppressive force imposing praxis and belief while suppressing dissent and creativity. This paradigm and resulting critiques of it were partly the product of other movements (the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment) seeking to differentiate themselves from ‘medieval’ practices or those attempting to revive (in indelibly altered forms) elements of the medieval past previously swept away. The history of the Middle Ages was often rewritten to focus on modern preoccupations (including the growth of commerce, communes and nation states), such that the methodologies of those affiliated with history departments often diverged radically from those working in religious studies departments or as regular religious. Herbert Grundmann’s groundbreaking research on religious movements motivated scholars to discuss the panorama of religious options open to individuals and groups in the Middle Ages; Giles Constable and his students soon ensured that religious reform and innovation were included among the dynamic factors driving the ‘Twelfth-century Renaissance’. Similarly, this collection edited by Jennifer Kolpacoff Deane and Anne E. Lester focuses on individuals and groups who forged identities for themselves as ‘semi-religious’ or ‘quasi-religious’, often with institutional support and assistance (or opposition), whether from their own families, local priests and prelates, communal or noble authority, and sometimes royal or papal circles. The authors and editors daringly conclude that ‘in-between’ expressions of ‘independent aspiring religiosity’ were the rule rather than the exception in high and later medieval Europe (p. xvii).
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".