Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explains the logistics of the liturgical calendar and the eucharistic ritual. On the production side, the number of masses performed was not chosen for its resonance, but was maximized based on worldly constraints—the availability of space (the number of altars), money, and time. Similarly, on the consumption side, enthusiasts running between churches sought to behold the highest possible number of masses, a number without any deep-ken meaning. In the deep ken, the glory of the mass was optimized by carefully orchestrating time, place, and other circumstances so they would consonate with each other. In contrast, the interest in maximizing the number of heard masses depended more on the plain ken. Especially in Bohemia and England, but even as far away as Tunisia, critics expressed pointed doubts that the eucharist ritual could turn wine and bread into Jesus's body and blood. Often these objections assumed a plain ken regarding space, which created obstacles to the transformation of matter, to the perception of the invisible, and to the possibility that Jesus could exist simultaneously across the breadth of Christendom. Other critics fought over interpretations of the Jesus's words used to institute the mass. The intensity of these debates fuelled rumours of desecrations. A number of miracles demonstrated that the consecrated host was powerful, indestructible, and unable to be misplaced. Local and transregional cults developed around hosts that bled to empirically drown out all these intellectual controversies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".