MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568737147 · doi:10.1177/0021828616678508

Ibn al-Shāṭir and Copernicus: The Uppsala Notes Revisited

2016· article· en· W2568737147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the History of Astronomy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistorical Astronomy and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopernicusPtolemy's table of chordsGeocentric modelPhilosophyAstronomerClassicsPhysicsHistoryAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has long been recognized that Copernicus’ models in the Commentariolus bear a striking resemblance to those of Ibn al-Shāṭir (14th-c. Damascus). A number of scholars have postulated some sort of transmission but have denied that Ibn al-Shāṭir’s geocentric models had anything to do with the heliocentric turn. Rather, the assumption has been that they were used by Copernicus solely to resolve the irregular motions of the planetary deferents brought on by Ptolemy’s equant. Based on proposals for direct transformations of Ibn al-Shāṭir’s models into those of Copernicus and an alternative reading of Copernicus’ so-called Uppsala notes, it is argued here that Ibn al-Shāṭir’s models in fact have a “heliocentric bias” that made them particularly suitable as a basis for the heliocentric and “quasi-homocentric” models found in the Commentariolus.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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