MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Book Marks of the Personal Library of the German Bibliophile Prince George of Anhalt

2021· article· en· W3171246957 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tatyana V. Grebenyuk

Bibliographic record

VenueObservatory of Culture · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)GermanState (computer science)Library scienceHistoryClassicsArt historyArtComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many years, the Rare Books Department (Book Museum) of the Russian State Library has been conducting up-to-date work on the description of ex-libris, which contributes to the disclosure of the Department’s collections. The main goal of this research is to identify, record, study, publish, and thereby show the variety and richness of the ownership marks found on books. This article is devoted to the book marks of the German bibliophile Prince George III of Anhalt (1507—1553) from the collection of the Russian State Library. In the Russian-language research literature, Prince George’s book marks have not been considered before. The highly valued private library, later named after the owner — “Georgs-Bibliothek”, used to be part of the Land Library in Dessau (Germany). A small part of this famous book collection came after World War II to the V.I. Lenin State Library of the USSR and is now stored in the Book Museum. On the example of the small fragment of Prince George’s famous library, the article traces the gradual appearance and development of the unique ex-libris of this collection, reveals the literary and bibliophile interests of the owner, and establishes the circle of his communication. In the course of the study, about a hundred owner’s marks were recorded, thanks to which there were identified more than 120 publications from the personal collection of Prince George of Anhalt. The article presents the main types of its ex-libris (handwritten, gift, and super-ex-libris), which are reproduced and described in detail.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObservatory of CultureSame topicLibrary Science and InformationFrench-language works237,207