MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pluralité de l’algèbre à la Renaissance

2015· article· fr· W2595142137 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sabine Rommevaux, Maryvonne Spiesser, María Rosa Massa Esteve, Richard J. Oosterhoff

Bibliographic record

VenueAestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPrinceton University
KeywordsHumanitiesThe RenaissanceArtPhilosophyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One central narrative in the history of science addresses how we came to use letters, lines, and squiggles to compress dramatic mathematical and physical stories into compact, digestible phrases of algebra. For historians of mathematics, the issue is doubly pressing. First, algebraic language is simply how modern mathematics works, so its emergence is worth knowing about. The second reason follows. For easier comprehension, historians tend to translate old texts into modern algebraic notation and then deal with ancient mathematics through this algebraic translation.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.021
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of ScienceSame topicHistory and Theory of MathematicsFrench-language works237,207