The <em>Collegium Melitense</em>: A Frontier Mission in the Interface Between the Christian and Muslim Worlds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1554 Ignatius Loyola realized Malta’s great potential as a stepping-stone for building contacts with the Muslim Maghreb. The close association of the Maltese language to Arabic further convinced the Jesuit Curia, and the Holy See, to ‘privilege’ Malta as an ideal base for the evangelization of North Africa and the Levant. However, with time, the En 1554 Ignacio de Loyola se dio cuenta del gran potencial que constituía la isla de Malta como punto de partida desde el que construir puentes con el Magreb musulmán. La asociación de la lengua maltesa con el árabe convenció todavía más a la Curia Jesuita y a la Santa Sede, para “privilegiar” a Malta como una base ideal para la evangelización del norte de África. Sin embargo, con el tiempo, el Collegium se vio mucho más abocado a predicar y a llevar a cabo actividades misioneras en la propia Malta. El presente estudio, basado en investigación realizada en la Curia Jesuita en Roma, analiza la actividad jesuita en Malta desde finales del siglo XVI hasta 1768, cuando los jesuitas fueron expulsados. Durante este periodo de casi dos siglos, el papel jugado por Malta tuvo que ver con su proximidad con el norte de África, así como el hecho de que los malteses eran hablantes nativos de una lengua semítica, que se creía cercana al árabe, pero a la vez fervientes catálicos. La Curia Jesuita parece haber usado a Malta como base de su actividad misionera a y desde Levante.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".