Michael Gockel, <i>Die urkundliche Überlieferung des Klosters Fulda zu Thüringen in der Karolingerzeit: Beiträge zum Quellenwert und zur Toponymie des Landes</i> . Veröffentlichungen der historischen Kommission für Thüringen, Kleine Reihe, 67. Cologne: Böhlau, 2024, pp. 245, 14 color plates, 1 removeable map.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the third quarter of the eighth century onwards, the monastery of Fulda played a central role in the religious, political, economic, and military affairs of the Carolingian Empire, the East Frankish realm, and subsequently in Ottonian Germany. This great influence was built, in large part, on the prodigious number and size of the donations of property made to this monastery by the ruling dynasties and by at least two thousand individual, private donors. The most substantial source of information regarding these property donations is the Codex Eberhardi , dated to ca. 1160, which is named after the monk of Fulda, who copied information regarding the property holdings of the monastery dating back to the abbacy of Rabanus Maurus (822–842). Unfortunately, Eberhard consistently left out information that was available to him from earlier sources, including compendia of donations, known as cartularies which had been preserved within the monastery’s archives. As a result, scholars have struggled for well over a century to reconstruct the holdings of Fulda at particular times, to identify the specific places that were granted, and also the identities of those who donated property to the monastery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.010 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".