MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971614604 · doi:10.3406/rbph.2009.7671

The Alfonso II Document of 812, the Annales Portugalenses Veteres and the Continuity of the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo as the Kingdom of Asturias

2009· article· en· W1971614604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Montenegro, Arcadio del Castillo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue belge de philologie et d histoire · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Studies and Legal History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKingdomCharterQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryAncient historyClassicsHumanitiesArchaeologyArtGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alfonso II charter of 812 supports our theory that the Kingdom of Asturias was a continuation of the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo. From a reading of the document it can be deduced that the determination to recover Hispania stood at the heart of what we call the Reconquest, and therefore simply constituted an attempt to recover the ancient Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo, lost as a result of the Muslim invasion of 711. The same idea of continuity is also present, albeit less clearly defined, in the Annales Portugalenses Veteres. Apart from this, the identification of Hispania with the Visigothic Kingdom as one and the same, to the extent that the two terms became interchangeable, was developed in the first quarter of the 7th century by Isidore of Seville, and was reinforced in the second half of that century by Julian of Toledo. However, they were already being treated as equivalent by Gregory of Tours in the second half of the 6th century, by Fredegar, in the mid-7th century, and by the Papal Chancery of Leo II in the last quarter of the 7th century.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue belge de philologie et d histoireSame topicClassical Studies and Legal HistoryFrench-language works237,207