Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The Almagest of Ptolemy (mid-second century ad) contains eleven dated reports of observations of the positions of planets made during the third century bc in Babylon and Hellenistic Egypt. The present paper investigates the character, purpose, and conventions of the observational programmes from which these reports derive, the channels of their transmission to Ptolemy's time, and the fidelity of Ptolemy's presentation of them. Like the Babylonian observational programme, about which we have considerable knowledge through cuneiform documents, the Greco-Egyptian ones were not directed towards the deduction of mathematical models of celestial motion but appear to have investigated patterns, correlations, and periodicities of phenomena. Ptolemy's immediate sources most likely were not the original series of observational records, but treatises by various astronomers of the intervening four centuries, including Hipparchus. While Ptolemy does not appear to have tampered with the wording of the reports, he faced difficulties and uncertainties in interpreting them; critically, he lacked sufficiently detailed information about the ancient calendars to be able to convert the reported dates accurately into his own chronological framework based on the Egyptian calendar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".