MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599570451 · doi:10.1353/mou.2006.0009

Flower Power in Medicine and Magic: Theophrastus’ Response to the Rootcutters’

2006· article· fr· W2599570451 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans sa discussion sur les plantes médicinales. Théophraste inclut les précautions prises par les cueilleurs et les dangers que courent ceux qui les négligent ou en font fi. Si dans certains cas, il en reconnaît la justesse, il les désapprouve dans d’autres. Nous proposons pour certaines de ces précautions de possibles explications scientifiques et pour d’autres l’origine de leur pouvoir magique. Nous nous penchons sur les motifs des cueilleurs de plantes pour perpétuer ces fables à leur sujet. Parmi ces raisons, nous comptons un désir de protéger leur gagne-pain. Nous nous demandons quelles raisons avait Théophraste de les reprendre dans ses œuvres.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of CanadaSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207