Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its very inception, Oviedo’s origins have been the object of a steady historiographical tradition that, without any remarkable gaps continues up to today. The most commonly adopted perspective, almost without exceptions, has been to assume, to dress up the facts and to comment foundational stories dating from the origins. Our perspective is different. We take profit from the already numerous published archaeological memoirs and reports on the excavations developed inside the medieval enclosure, subjecting them to criticism and contrast. The study of these sources has allowed us to ask and answer the questions, whose results are the mirror against which literary and documentary evidence is projected. Our journey begins systematically analyzing the archaeological and toponymical records on the territory surrounding the original settlement, a hill known as Obetao, weighing up its importance for the future dwelling nucleous. After this, we study the documentary evidence and early plot divisions –as much as they might be recovered- related to the emergence and evolution of old Oviedo’s core: Saint Vincent’s abbey foundation and King Fruela’s role; King Alfons the 2nd’s work (791-842), creating the bishop’s complex and the cathedral’s quarter, and the first and unique settlement enclosure; the great sectors of the early medieval population: palaces, monasteries and private estates. The study of the beginnings of the urban development inside the limits of the early medieval settlement let’s us conclude that it is possible to consider Oviedo to be a town only from the advanced 12th century onwards, according coherently to other historical phenomena like the granting of the city charter, coin currency and demographic growth, all of which only find an adequate historical ground through this new perspective.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".