MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050597478 · doi:10.1080/021086032000062974

Early Illustrated Manuscripts of Kashifi's <i>Akhlāq-i Muḥsinī</i>

2003· article· en· W2050597478 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Golombek

Bibliographic record

VenueIranian Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolioInscribed figureNumeral systemClassicsHistoryComposition (language)Critical editionLiteratureKingdomAncient historyPhilosophyArtMathematicsBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of the Many Recorded Manuscripts of Husayn Vaᶜiz-i Kashifi's Treatise on ethics, Akhlāq-i Muḥinī, only six were planned to have illustrations to the text. The manuscript bearing what is ostensibly the earliest date (900/1494-95), was acquired by the Royal Ontario Museum in 1997. It opens with a shamsah, inscribed with a dedication to the Timurid prince Abu’l-Muhsin, and containing the date 900 in numerals (fig. 1). On the last folio, a quatrain relating to the year of composition of the treatise contains a chronogram as well as the date 900 in numerals. The abjad date can, however, be read either as “900” or “907,” and Maria Subtelny has demonstrated convincingly that the latter date must be the correct one, as the text contains a reference to the reconciliation of Abu’l-Muhsin and his father Sultan-Husayn, which took place around 906/1500. Therefore, the work could not have been composed in 900 A.H., and, consequently, the attribution of the Toronto manuscript to this date is false.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIranian StudiesSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207