Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Aristotle's works on ethics, politics, physics, and metaphysics were rediscovered in the West toward the end of the twelfth century. For a long time thereafter, many regarded him, in Dante's words, as “the master of those who know.” In the seventeenth century, Hobbes could still complain that his ideas dominated the “the Philosophy-schooles, through all the universities of Christendome.” During these centuries, as I have described elsewhere, philosophers and jurists built the first systematic theory of contract law. It was a synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Roman law. Roman law had been studied in Western universities since its rediscovery about 1100. For all their subtlety, however, the Roman jurists were not theorists. A first step toward a theory was taken by Thomas Aquinas who developed a systematic moral philosophy based on Aristotle, which incorporated Roman legal concepts and rules. Gradually, jurists borrowed ideas from Aristotle and Thomas and read them into Roman texts. Then, in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, a group centered in Spain and known to historians as the “late scholastics” tried to explain as much of Roman law as possible on Aristotelian and Thomistic principles. Among the leaders of this group were Domingo de Soto (1494–1560), Luis de Molina (1535–1600), and Leonard Lessius (1554–1623). They gave Roman law a theory and a systematic doctrinal organization for the first time. In the seventeenth century, the founders of modern critical philosophy broke with the Aristotelian tradition. Paradoxically, during the same century, many of the conclusions of the late scholastics were borrowed and disseminated throughout Europe by the founders of the northern natural law school, Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) and Samuel Pufendorf (1632–94).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".