MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415126820 · doi:10.1093/ehr/ceaf175

<i>England and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages: Papal Privileges in European Perspective, c.680–1073</i> , by Benjamin Savill

2025· article· en· W4415126820 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Wiedemann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe English Historical Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Religious Studies of Rome
Canadian institutionsCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux Cavendish
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle AgesPeriod (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ben Savill was—like the current reviewer and several other British scholars of the medieval papacy—at one time a student of David d’Avray at University College London. The debt which his students owe d’Avray is significant, as is the recognition which d’Avray gives his former students. The book under review here is frequently credited in d’Avray’s 2023 monograph—The Power of Protocol: Diplomatics and the Dynamics of Papal Government, c.400–c.1600— as ‘transforming our understanding of Anglo-Papal relations in the early Middle Ages’ (p. 30, 90n). Savill’s focus is on papal privileges sent to England—not all documentary productions of the early medieval papal chancery, but specifically privileges (Savill’s observation that the category of ‘privilege’ is subjective is a useful one). Privileges were the most visually striking and remarkable outputs of the early medieval papacy. Written on papyrus in an archaic form of writing, and often physically vast (seven metres long seems to be the record), early medieval papal privileges are impossible to overlook (when seen in the original—Savill is right that printed editions can easily rob them of their mystique). The overall argument is that the early medieval papacy did not possess a monopoly of shaping its own narrative(s); the petitioners and beneficiaries of papal documents led the way in interpreting what the successor of St Peter was and meant in their regions. Savill here fits into a broader trend of emphasising ‘beneficiary-influence’ in the activities, and even the physical outputs, of the papacy. Most privileges, letters and mandates of the papal curia were issued in response to petitioners’ requests, and were heavily shaped by what they asked for. The language and physical documents themselves were shaped by what petitioners desired and expected from the papacy, as Hans-Henning Kortüm, Jochen Johrendt and Judith Werner have shown. Savill shows how privileges to English recipients fit into that trend, but also how, when those privileges arrived ‘on the ground’, English figures used them to sculpt their own image of the papacy and the authority of St Peter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe English Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeFrench-language works237,207