Grisogonovo astronomsko zrcalo (Speculum astronomicum) i Zrcalo astronomije (Speculum astronomiae) Alberta Velikog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Grisogono does not mention Albertus Magnus’s Speculum astronomiae in his Speculum astronomicum anywhere, there are obvious similarities between these two texts, which point to the fact that Albertus Magnus’s Speculum astronomiae is, whether directly or indirectly, one of Grisogono’s sources. The similarities that support this thesis are the following: Albertus Magnus holds that 1) astrology, when answering questions on the past and the present, does not claim that all derives from necessity, nor does it contradict freedom of the will; 2) when astrology gives advice on what a good course of action is in a given situation, it actually presupposes that not all derives from necessity, and that some things and events are accidental; 3)the problem that Albertus Magnus perceives in relation to astrology is its similarity with magical practices which are corrupt and unacceptable, but astrology is not magic but mathematics; 4) the answers that astrology gives to questions on the future are potentially dangerous for freedom of the will, but this is in fact a problem for theology, which solves the problem. Grisogono’s expositions of the relationship between freedom of the will and astrology are very similar to Albertus Magnus’s theses, which can hardly be sheer coincidence. However, Grisogono is not merely an epigone since his central thesis – that astrology is the highest, a theoretical and at the same time a useful science – which indicates the Modern Era is not be found in either Albertus Magnus or any other Renaissance philosopher.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".