Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Finally, our investigation comes full circle back to its point of departure. In Chapter 1, we used the Kypros mappamundi as a means of introducing the whole vast subject of Jewish geographical conceptions. Then, in Chapters 2-6, we examined the Jewish geographical tradition that probably most influenced Jewish and Christian geographical conceptions through the centuries, that is, Genesis 10 and the Table of Nations tradition, in particular Jubilees 8–9. In the present chapter, we return to the Kypros map to explore the possible relevance of our investigation for understanding the medieval mappaemundi . With the discussion of Chapters 2-6 in view, it is almost inevitable that speculation should lead one to consider a possible link, however tenuous and indirect, between the Kypros map and the mappaemundi . For if the Kypros map reflects Jewish geographical traditions, and if Christian sources received and transmitted the same Jewish geographical traditions, then we may plausibly ask whether these traditions influenced the medieval mappaemundi . This possibility is strengthened by the fact that the Book of Jubilees was preserved in a Latin version, dating to the fifth to sixth century. Moreover, Greek Jubilees had long circulated in the form of extracts in many disparate works, especially the Christian chronographic tradition, as we have seen. Given the many uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge, the purpose of this chapter must be tentative and cautious, exploring the possibilities and opening up new visas for future investigation. Our research is complicated by at least three major factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".