MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018041665 · doi:10.1163/157338212x645094

Medical Translations and Practical Compilations: A Necessary Coincidence?

2012· article· en· W2018041665 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Science and Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVernacularFifteenthContext (archaeology)Middle AgesPhenomenonClassicsAstrologyHistoryOrder (exchange)Middle EnglishLiteraturePhilosophyEpistemologyArtAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century medicine is characterised by a trickle-down effect which led to an increasing dissemination of knowledge in the vernacular. In this context, translations and compilations appear to be two similar endeavours aiming to provide access to contents pertaining to the particulars of medical practice. Nowhere is this phenomenon seen more clearly than in vernacular manuscripts on surgery. Our study proposes to compare for the first time two corpora of manuscripts of surgical compilations, in Middle French and Middle English respectively, in order to discuss form and matter in this type of book production.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.329 · 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