The Space Between Love and Hate: Coexistence During Convivencia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The period preceding the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Iberia in the late 15th and early 16th centuries was marred by conflict. The extent and degree of the discord has long been fiercely debated amongst scholars in two camps. Many late 20th century scholars have accepted the concept of Convivencia or “coexistence,” which argues that Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived in relative harmony with one another, peacefully blending their different cultures together. Others argue that there was no amicable cohabitation between the rival cultures and that Convivencia is a modern creation of later historians. This study focuses on Christian and Muslim primary source documents centering on 15th century Castile to gain insight of this debate. By analyzing personal accounts of daily life as well as legal documents including capitulations, land distributions, a Sunni Muslim breviary detailing social laws, a glimpse of the attitudes and feelings of individuals living within the supposed Convivencia can be seen. This research demonstrates that while Convivencia might not have been attained, there were genuine and earnest efforts by both the Christian ruling class and their Muslim subjects to live together without violence or severe oppression. PART OF SESSION 1A. CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS: Comment: Jeanette Fregulia, Carroll CollegeChair: Ellen Kittell, University of Idaho Francesca M. Duncan, University of Portland, undergraduate student“A Collaborative Crusade: Economic Incentives for Religious Tolerance in Sicily, 1061–1189” John Franzwa, Western Oregon University, undergraduate student“The Space Between Love and Hate: Coexistence During Convivencia” James M. Masnov, Portland State University, graduate student“Religious Freedom Matters, At Home and Abroad: Thomas Jefferson in Paris in the 1780s”
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".