Scandinavian nature in the period of Christianization, according to Latin sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the reciprocal relationship between humans and nature in Norway and Sweden between the 9th and 12th centuries. The period under study is that of the Christianization of Scandinavia, when Scandinavians, who practiced paganism, changed their culture and society. The first missionaries sent to Christianize Scandinavians wrote Latin sources about their mission. These sources give medieval Christian authors' worldviews, perceptions of nature, and descriptions of the Scandinavian environment and culture. This study applies medieval environmental history, linguistic analysis, and archaeological sources to study human-nature relations. Archaeological sources complement the Latin texts to understand these relations better. The research uses Richard Hoffmann's interactive model of culture and nature to discuss reciprocal relationships between culture and the environment; Julian Steward's culture area concept to understand the role of culture in these relationships; Malthusian theory to comprehend the human impact on the environment since increasing demography leads to greater use of natural resources. The interconnections of humans and medieval nature are represented through agricultural and wood utilization activities, which depended on how people perceived their surroundings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".