Imbutus divinis dogmatibus: Some remarks on the legal training of Gregorian legates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the last quarter of the eleventh century, the implementation of (church) reform depended on the careful selection and appointment of a handful of papal legates, whose enthusiasm and charisma were influential characteristics for the application and dissemination of reforming policies and legislation ; agents like Bishop Hugh of Die (later archbishop of Lyons), whose thirteen councils spanning ten years (1075-85) exhibit clearly the incentive and initiative of his reforming methods. But while Hugh exuded the characteristics of a loyal reformer, he was not always willing to follow - as Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) often put it - the desired restraint of discretion (discretionis temperantiam). As a result, historians have often treated him as ultra-Gregorian, consequently overlooking the relevance of his relationship with the pope, his contribution to the ad hoc legal and administrative developments of the legatine office, and (of particular interest to the present study) the canonical sources and authorities most influencing his reforming (thus legal) mentality. While an extensive knowledge of reforming law, litigation and procedure was presumably mandatory for someone of Hugh's ecclesiastical rank and stature, this study seeks to throw light on the legal background, training and education of Gregorian' legates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".