MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148033824 · doi:10.3917/ahdlm.079.0289

Deux questions inédites de Jacques de Viterbe sur les habitus

2013· article· fr· W2148033824 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives d histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyHabitusSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On trouvera ici la présentation et l’édition de deux brèves questions de l’Ermite de saint Augustin, Jacques de Viterbe. Dans la première question, Jacques s’attache à montrer en quel sens il est légitime de dire que les habitus moraux sont innés. Dans la seconde question, il défend la thèse que les habitus des principes moraux appartiennent de façon plus intime à l’âme que les habitus intellectuels. Comme le Viterbien oppose sa position à celle de Thomas d’Aquin, on tente dans la dernière partie de l’article de cerner les raisons philosophiques du désaccord entre les deux auteurs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives d histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen ÂgeSame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207