The Subject Behind the Object: The Language of Things in the Time of the Crusades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper takes as a starting point the slippage between bodies and things as an idea and moment to interrogate an epistemology accessible through materiality. I explore the methodology of materiality, suggesting that one of the major contributions of material studies is a renewed attention to the dynamics of materialism embedded in the objects themselves: those unnamed subjects who lie behind or just beyond an object’s presence, who played a role in its making, its movement and its meaning. To this end, the paper takes shape around a series of case studies of bodies and/as things drawn from the crusader world described by Jean de Joinville, namely stones, cloth and captives (bodies made into things). Attendant with these objects were deeper theological and ontological questions about the role of matter in relation to faith and the divine. The period of the crusades was a particularly revealing moment for the tensions and beliefs surrounding the work of material religion. By looking at these case studies I hope to bridge the divide between intellectual and theological concerns with materiality and the material presence of human labour in things and thereby to think sociologically with materiality. This is an invitation to take up the imperative behind material studies to go beyond words and see the subjects behind the objects.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".