Alexandre d’Aphrodise. Commentaire perdu à la <i>Physique</i> d’Aristote (Livres IV–VIII). Les scholies byzantines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of what survives of Alexander's commentary on Aristotle's Physics, as in the case of Alexander's commentary on the De caelo, comes from citations that we find in later commentators, particularly, Themistius, Philoponus, and Simplicius.Our current knowledge of Alexander's writing on Aristotle's Physics and De caelo is, therefore, largely confined to these references in the indirect tradition.However, there exists scholiastic evidence in addition to those sources.In fact, Marwan Rashed has demonstrated that the conspicuous number of scholia listed as marginalia on MS Parisinus suppl.gr.643 and MS Parisinus 1859 must be related in a more or less immediate way to this greatest among the commentators of the late antiquity; and he now presents in a noteworthy annotated edition the corpus of the scholia on Phys.4-8.The volume is comprised of a massive introduction divided in two parts, which are further subdivided into a history of the text and a doctrinal introduction.The discussion explores three aspects: the archaeological, the historical, the systemic.In his avant-propos, Rashed first calls our attention to the systemic aspect, that is, to Alexander's attempt to explain Aristotle's Physics in an existential sense by showing the certain and central role of form in relation to the concepts of desire (ἔφεϲιϲ) and perfection (τελειότηϲ).Two manuscripts contain the corpus of scholia explored by Rashed.The first, the codex Parisinus suppl.gr.643 (S: first half of the 14th century) breaks the text of the Physics into two parts: books 1-3 and books 4-8.These latter books, however, as Rashed shows, have their complement in the MS Laurentianus 87.20, which contains books 1-3 copied by the same hand
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.033 |
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".