The First Oxford Sentences Commentary on the Last Things: An Edition and Study of Richard Fishacre's In quartum Sententiarum, Distinctions 43-50
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The First Oxford Sentences Commentary on the Last Things: An Edition and Study of Richard Fishacre’s In quartum Sententiarum, Distinctions 43-50 Louis Shwartz Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto 2015 Richard Fishacre (d. 1248), one of the first Dominican masters to teach at the nascent University of Oxford, composed his lengthy commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences during the final decade of his life. The closing eight distinctions of Fishacre’s commentary study the Last Things and comprise a diverse array of loosely related topics: the general resurrection, the final judgment, the fiery reforging of the world, purgatory, indulgences, heaven, and hell. Drawing on all surviving manuscript witnesses, I have edited this section of Fishacre’s work. Additionally, in two case studies dealing with indulgences and glorified bodies, I show how Fishacre, by invoking law and natural science, proposes new ways of revisiting standard theological questions, influences the eschatological teachings of his successors, and promotes a remarkably interdisciplinary approach to pedagogy. Thus beyond providing modern scholars with a critical edition of Fishacre’s teachings concerning the Last Things, my work also sharpens our knowledge of Fishacre’s academic career, examines his unique teaching methods, compares the intellectual traditions developing at Oxford to those being fostered at Paris, and develops new frameworks of historical inquiry which can be applied to other portions of Fishacre’s massive Commentary.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".