MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392787357 · doi:10.3138/flor-2021-0001

The Epiphany Liturgy at Pistoia as an Expression of Episcopal Authority

2024· article· en· W4392787357 on OpenAlexaffvenue
James Vincent Maiello

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Religious Studies of Rome
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpiphanyLiturgyExpression (computer science)ArtHistoryTheologyPhilosophyLiteratureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The plainchant repertory preserved in the twelfth-century choir books of the cathedral of San Zeno in Pistoia reflects both the regional importance of the institution during the central medieval period and its robust musical culture. Among the many items of interest to scholars, the High Mass for Epiphany in particular stands out for its extensive and idiosyncratic accretions. This liturgy merits close study for what it can tell us about chant transmission, trope composition, and other phenomena, but I will focus in this essay on its potential for use as an expression of episcopal authority in the cultural milieu of medieval Tuscany. Examining the Epiphany liturgy at San Zeno through the lens of the Investiture Controversy and the early communal period in Italy, I will characterize the High Mass as an expression of episcopal authority and as a symbol of independence from imperial and communal control. Drawing on a variety of methodological models, I argue that the bishop and the cathedral chapter used the theological themes associated with Epiphany in concert with the spectacle of such an important High Mass as performed in medieval Tuscany to craft a hermeneutic program that emphasized the dual authority—spiritual and temporal—of the bishop and set him in opposition to the Holy Roman emperor using an allegory of Christ and Herod.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeFrench-language works237,207