PAUL POTTER (ed., trans.), Hippocrates: Volume XI. Loeb Classical Library 538, Cambridge, Mass. – London: Harvard University Press, 2018, pp. xxviii+491, ISBN 978-0-674-99657-1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With this eleventh volume, Paul Potter's sixth contribution to the series, Loeb's invaluable edition of the Hippocratic texts reaches its completion. 1 The present offering features two treatises, Diseases of Women I and Diseases of Women II, that, as Potter points out, have been considered a pair since at least the first century CE.They were last edited in the 1850s and 1860s by Littré and by Ermerins.Like most editors and translators of these texts, Littré being a notable exception, Potter has retained the traditional division into two separate works.The volume is prefaced by a general introduction which includes a short history of the treatises, a brief account of the manuscript tradition and a stemma codicum.A short section is also devoted to an explanation of two problematic technical terms. 2 Also provided is a list of references and bibliography to earlier editions, translations and commentaries, and to more general works.The volume concludes with a lexicon of the therapeutic agents included in the text, both in Greek to English and English to Greek format, and a comprehensive index.The edition is based on a collation of the three independent witnesses to the text, Θ, M, and V from microfilm (though M omits chapters 92-109 of Disease of Women I).Volume and page references to Littré's nineteenthcentury edition are made in the margins; also included in parentheses are Littré's chapter numbers for Diseases of Women II, which he treated as a continuation of Diseases of Women I.As is usual for the Loeb series, the apparatus criticus is not extensive, but notes all the significant variants, along with any notable readings from previous editors.Some useful explanatory
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.020 |
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".