MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037672059 · doi:10.1075/bpjam.17.05cot

Siger, Avicenna, and Albert the Great on universals and natures

2014· article· en· W2037672059 on OpenAlex
Antoine Côté

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

VenueBochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval and Classical Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProblem of universalsPhilosophyDoctrineSubject (documents)RealismEpistemologyLiteratureTheologyArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines Siger of Brabant’s doctrine of universals in light of Siger’s critical discussion of two highly influential philosophers on the issue of universals in the Middle Ages, Avicenna and Albert the Great. Although Siger unequivocally rejects Albert’s views on universals – rightly so, given Albert’s commitment to a rather robust form of realism –, he is far less hostile to Avicenna’s ideas on the subject than he is to Albert’s. The paper examines Siger’s contrasting attitudes to both authors, highlights Siger’s perspicuity as a reader and interpreter of the works of other philosophers, and shows how Siger uses the doctrines of Albert and Avicenna to sharpen his own position.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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