MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Agrippa von Nettesheim

2012· reference-entry· en· W2792549764 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles G. Nauert

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2012
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipMAGIC (telescope)OccultClassicsArtHistoryArt historyLiteratureAncient historyLawMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (b. 14 September 1486 in Cologne—d. 1535 in Grenoble) was famous (or infamous) as the author of works on magic and the occult sciences not only in his own time but also centuries later. He was known for his declamation De incertitudine (see Individual Works) that denounced all human learning (including his own), probably the most frequently reprinted and translated of his publications, and also for a short treatise De nobilitate (see Collected Works) on the superiority of women, which succeeding generations discounted as a witty paradox but which modern feminist scholarship has taken very seriously. The major intellectual problem that his work has posed for modern intellectual historians is the apparent contradiction between his work on occult philosophy and his book denying the value of all fields of learning, including his own treatise on magic. Educated first at the University of Cologne (licentiate in arts, 1502), he traveled widely in France, Spain, England, and especially Italy, where he probably received degrees in both law and medicine (two professions that he practiced in later years), although no record of an Italian doctorate has been discovered. His work is especially important because of his lifelong study of ancient Platonic, modern Neoplatonic, Cabalistic, and Hermetic writings, an interest that began in his early years, matured during his years in Italy, and remained active throughout his life. Helpful modern scholarship on Agrippa is available in a variety of Western languages. In one form or another, the great majority of Agrippa’s numerous works are available in most academic research libraries. Some are available in English translation. Translations of De incertitudine were printed in several vernaculars (English in 1569, London: Henry Wykes and a modern reprint in 1974, Northridge: California State University). Less widely circulated was De occulta philosophia (see Individual Works) (first English edition in 1651, London: R.W. for Gregory Moule). Despite the existence of a few modern translations and more numerous older translations of questionable reliability, no reader should be deceived; serious study of Agrippa requires a reading knowledge of Latin, the language in which he wrote all of his works.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical StudiesFrench-language works237,207