Bibliographic record
Abstract
After Alsted and Bisterfeld fled Herborn for Transylvania in 1629, their work on perfecting the Encyclopaedia published in Herborn the following year continued uninterrupted for a quarter century. Alsted overhauled his topical encyclopaedia in a manuscript which was returned to Herborn in 1648 and destined for printing around 1650 but which has subsequently disappeared. He devoted additional work to recasting the post-Ramist Encyclopaedia in quasi-Lullist combinatorial form, leaving a set of extremely compact and provocative works in manuscript which were further developed by Bisterfeld and published by Heereboord and others after his death in 1655 (section 10.i). In 1674 a more modest proposal to overhaul the Encyclopaedia was published by Georg Hieronymus Welsch, a leading member of the Academia Naturae Curiosorum. The process in which this project was overwhelmed by a huge range of polyhistorical interests illustrates some of the ways in which encyclopaedism had been side-lined by other intellectual priorities in the course of the seventeenth century (section 10.ii). For Leibniz, the project of replacing Alsted’s Encyclopaedia with a more intellectually coherent and philosophically up-to-date work of the same kind became a lifelong aspiration; but with the end of the great educational boom of the long sixteenth century, the conditions which had nurtured Alsted’s life-long project had disappeared (section 10.iii).
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.423 | 0.262 |
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".