Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thomas de Perseigne est un personnage étrangement mal connu. Son commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques, écrit entre 1170 et 1189, fut l’un des commentaires de ce type les plus largement diffusés et il en subsiste aujourd’hui soixante-dix-huit manuscrits. On trouve également mention de sept autres copies perdues. Seuls trois autres commentaires médiévaux ont été conservés dans un plus grand nombre de manuscrits – ceux de Bernard de Clairvaux, d’Honoré d’Autun et le commentaire combiné de Grégoire le Grand et de Robert de Tombelaine – et le commentaire de Thomas fut imprimé à cinq reprises entre 1521 et 1853. Sa popularité se doit à son style moderne et à la richesse de son contenu. En ce qui concerne le style, la totalité du commentaire est organisée en une succession de parties (distinctiones) et de sous-parties ; le contenu propose quant à lui des interprétations théologiques, morales, spirituelles, mystiques, ecclésiologiques, mariologiques et liturgiques puisées à un très grand nombre de sources. Il s’agit d’une véritable encyclopédie de l’allégorie médiévale.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".