Avicena y la división de las ciencias especulativas en base al subiectum scientiae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopo aver studiato l'argomento della divisione delle scienze speculative in Aristotele e Boezio, riprendiamo la marcia della nostra ricerca presentando il pensiero di Avicenna al riguardo. Bisogna ammettere l'importanza del suo contributo per lo sviluppo della filosofia, e in modo particolare la metafisica, nell'occidente medievale, senza il quale non si puo cogliere la continuita e i cambiamenti progressivi nelle diverse edizioni di questa scienza regina del sapere razionale umano. Avicenna insistera a ragione nell'importanza del subiectum scientiae per stabilire la divisione delle scienze speculative, e mettera in rilievo il soggetto proprio della metafisica, cioe l'ente in quanto ente. In un altro contesto, vedremo come Avicenna parlera dei diversi gradi di astrazione nelle variejacolta conoscitive, ma senza mettere questa dottrina in rapporto con la questione della divisione delle scienze, come invece faranno successivamente altri autori, confondendo forse questi due livelli di riflessione.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".