MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W655159695

The Complete Book of Heraldry: An International History of Heraldry and Its Contemporary Uses

2002· book· en· W655159695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Slater

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeraldryChivalryGlossaryHistoryVisual artsClassicsArtAncient historyArt historyLinguisticsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heraldry emerged at a time when fighting men became unrecognizable to both friend and enemy, hidden as they were in protective armour. The solution to the problem of identity lay in the shield, which could be decorated with a design that was completely unique, and visible from a distance. As these armorial badges of individuality were handed down from one generation to the next, they came to indicate descent as well as identity. At first, heraldry was an intrinsic part of the pageantry of medieval European royalty, but it was gradually adapted to serve nations, cities, the church and guilds. In the age of exploration that followed, the fashion for arms was carried around the world, and in time, distinct national styles arose. It is the wider use that makes modern heraldry so fascinating, and there is a wealth of information and images in this book describing the heraldry of people from Napoleon to Emperor Montezuma II of the Aztecs, and from medieval monks to Canadian Inuits, Through its ability to adapt to changing times and new uses, heraldry remains alive and well, and more arms have been granted in the last century than in any previous age. With a refreshing and sometimes irreverent style, The Complete Book of Heraldry celebrates this success, noting the more bizarre manifestations of heraldic art around the world, as well as conventional applications

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207