Cyprianus: De habitu virginum; Pseudo-Cyprianea I. Edited by P. Mattei and L. Ciccolini
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This stout volume, of which under a quarter contains Latin text, brings together editions of one authentic work of Cyprian and three apocrypha, none of them printed since the Vienna edition of Wilhelm Hartel (who was then, we are told [p. 259], under 30) as long ago as 1871. We owe this remarkable book to two scholars who, in close cooperation, have lavished on these short works learning, industry, and exactness that Cyprian and the pseudo-Cyprians perhaps did not altogether deserve. Laetitia Ciccolini is primarily responsible for three of the works. They are transmitted in different selections from the many manuscripts that carry the Cyprianic treatises. Maurice Bévenot, writing in 1961, thought that so contaminated a tradition could not be reduced to stemmatic order (see my review of Graeme Clarke’s De lapsis in JTS, ns 65 [2014], pp. 282–4). Ciccolini agrees with this judgement so far as De habitu virginum is concerned, but finds herself able to draw (quite different) stemmata for De laude martyrii and De iudaica incredulitate. The many pages in which she argues for these conclusions are a model of method, and add greatly to our knowledge of the textual history of the Cyprianic corpus. I should wish to record, as she does, how much she owed to the labours of Pierre Petitmengin in this field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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".