Les Instruments De Travail Philosophiques Médiévaux. Témoins De La Reception D'Aristote
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is possible to study the reception of Aristotle's natural philosophy by means of the various tools that were used by intellectuals during the thirteenth century. This type of literature is often forgotten. Four samples are taken here to illustrate the interest of such works, and the information that we can extract from them. The examples are the sermons by Anton of Padua (ca. 1230); an encyclopedia composed by Arnold of Saxony during the second quarter of the thirteenth century, which includes extracts from recent translations mixed together with Neoplatonic passages; an Aristotelian florilegium, which illustrates thirteenth-century censorship of Aristotelian texts; and a translation of the Meteorologica into the vernacular, which documents the popularity of this treatise at the end of the thirteenth century and the creation of a technical vocabulary in old French texts. The third example is an anthology that originated in a Franciscan milieu and was compiled in its definitive form at the end of the 13th century. This latter presents a series of purged texts about natural science. Finally, it discuss the French translation of Aristotle's Meteorology by Mahieu le Vilain, master at the Arts Faculty of the University of Paris at the end of the 13th century. This is the first translation of an Aristotelian treatise into vernacular, allowing us to understand the popularization of this treatise and its importance for the technical vocabulary of this discipline.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".