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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".