MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604980722

The Graeco-Latin Translation of Galen, De Symptomatum Differentiis

2013· article· en· W2604980722 on OpenAlexaff
Beate Gundert

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina nei secoli · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonKey (lock)VocabularyLinguisticsPhilosophyTranslation (biology)HistoryClassicsComputer scienceBiologyEvolutionary biologyGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper applies the method developed by such scholars as L. Minio- Paluello, R. J. Durling, F. Bossier and A. M. Urso to confirm that Burgundio da Pisa is the author of the Graeco-Latin translation of the Galenic treatise De symptomatum differentiis . The results of a complete investigation of a number of particles, of selected vocabulary, and of supralinear and marginal notes in the four extant manuscripts (Wellcomensis  286, Amplonianus  F 278, Vaticanus Barberinus Lat . 179 and Matritensis  1978) are discussed in the text and presented in appended charts, together with a selective investigation of the three related treatises De morborum differentiis, De morborum causis  and De symptomatum causis . This data, assessed within the framework of the chronological development of Burgundio’s translation technique, not only confirms Burgundio’s authorship of Sympt. Diff ., but also permits a provisional localisation of this translation between those of John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa  (1153/4) and Galen, De locis affectis. Key words : De symptomatum differentiis  - Burgundio da Pisa  - Graeco-Latin 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicina nei secoliSame topicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical StudiesFrench-language works237,207