Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This historiographical essay explores how scholars have analyzed depictions of the Crusades in literature. Specifically, it compares how three books, Geraldine Heng’s Empire of Magic: Medieval Romance and the Politics of Cultural Fantasy, Lee Manion’s Narrating the Crusades: Loss and Recovery in Medieval and Early Modern English Literature, and Marisa Galvez’s The Subject of Crusade: Lyric, Romance, and Materials, 1150 to 1500, examine the significance of Crusade discourse’s prevalence in literature, including in a medieval Arthurian romance, a fictional account of Richard the Lionheart’s crusading experiences, and even a Shakespearean play. Examining the Crusades through literature alone is an insufficient way to reach historical conclusions. However, by analyzing fictional Crusade narratives within their historical contexts, each book, this paper argues, unveils invaluable insights into medieval society’s perception of the disturbing ethical and cultural issues that surrounded the Crusades, such as crusader cannibalism, and how contemporaries tried to mitigate these concerns by writing reimagined histories.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it