MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394954285 · doi:10.1353/ben.2022.a923884

A History of Benedictine Libraries and Their Afterlives (Part Two)

2022· article· en· W4394954285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hugh Feiss

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Benedictine Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Religious Studies of Rome
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A History of Benedictine Libraries and Their Afterlives (Part Two) Hugh Feiss O.S.B. (bio) Hugh Feiss Hugh Feiss, O.S.B., Monastery of the Ascension, Jerome, ID, is co-editor and a contributor to A Benedictine Reader 530–1530 (Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 2019). He is subprior, oblate director, and editor of the Desert Chronicle for his monastery. Part One of this article appeared in American Benedictine Review 72, no. 4 (December 2021), 368-383. Footnotes 1. See Hugh Feiss and Ronald Pepin, "Pope Benedict XII," in A Benedictine Reader: 530–1530, ed. Hugh Feiss, Ronald E. Pepin, and Maureen M. O'Brien, Cistercian Studies 275 (Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 2019), 470–494; R. M. Thomson, "Worcester Monks and Education, c.1300," in The Culture of Medieval English Monasticism, ed. James G. Clark, Studies in the History of Medieval Religion (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2007), 104–110. 2. F. M. Wormald, "The Monastic Library," in The English Library before 1700, ed. Francis Wormald and C. E. Wright (London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1958), 21. 3. Wormald, "The Monastic Library," 18. 4. Richard Sharpe, "The Medieval Librarian," in Elizabeth Leedham-Green and Teresa Webber, eds., The Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland, Volume I: To 1640 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1.218–244. 5. This section is based on Seb Falk, The Light Ages: The Surprising Story of Medieval Science (New York: W. W. Norton, 2020). 6. David Bell, "What Nuns Read: The State of the Question," in Clark, Culture, 113–133. 7. Mary C. Erler, "Private Reading in the Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century English Nunnery," in Clark, Culture, 134–146. 8. A. B. Emden, Donors of Books to S. Augustine's Abbey Canterbury, Oxford Bibliographical Society Occasional Publication 4 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, Bodleian Library, 1968). 9. R. M. Wilson, "The Contents of the Medieval Library," in Wormald and Wright, The English Library, 85–111. As the author points out, there is no guarantee that these surviving catalogues are representative. They also include non-monastic libraries such as those at Oxford and Cambridge, but this summary is a fairly accurate representation of the contents of at least the larger monastic libraries. 10. William Smith, "The English Benedictines and the Early Printed Book," American Benedictine Review, 72, no. 1 (March 2021): 41–47. 11. Smith, "English Benedictines and the Early Printed Book," 27–41. 12. A. J. Piper, "Thomas Swalwell: Monk of Durham, Archivist and Bibliophile (d. 1539)," in Books and Collectors 1200–1700: Essays Presented to Andrew Watson, ed. James P. Carley and Colin G. C. Tite, British Library Studies in the History of the Book (London: The British Library, 1997), 71–99. 13. Richard Ovenden, Burning the Books: A History of the Deliberate Destruction of Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2020), 62. Ovenden is Director of the Bodleian Libraries at the University of Oxford. 14. John Leland, De uiris illustribus; On Famous Men, ed. James P. Carley (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies/Oxford: Bodleian Library, 2010), 67, 69; cited by Ovenden, Burning, 51; James P. Carley, "The Dispersal of Monastic Libraries and the Salvaging of the Spoils," in Leedham-Green and Webber, Cambridge History of Libraries, 1:265–266, 273–281. Leland visited libraries of many different religious institutions; he praised Benedictine libraries as the best maintained. 15. In an often-cited remark, in his account of Leland's journey, John Bale wrote: "To destroy all without consideration, is and will be unto England for ever, a most horrible infamy. A great number of them which purchased those superstitious mansions, reserved of those library books, some to rub their boots. Some they sold to the grocers and soap sellers, and some they sent to overseas to the bookbinders, not in small number, but at times whole ships full, to the wondering of foreign nations … What may bring our realm to more shame and rebuke, than to have it known abroad, that we are despisers of learning?" Cited by Ovenden, Burning the Books, 55. 16. N. P. Ker, cited in Carley, "Dispersal," 291. 17. Alan Coates, English Medieval Books: The Reading Abbey Collections from Foundation to Dispersal...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.017

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Benedictine ReviewSame topicHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeFrench-language works237,207