Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author, a member of the HAS‒NSZL Res Libraria Hungariae Research Group, while working on the database of codex fragments, which is being prepared for the Manuscripts Collection of the National Széchényi Library, became aware of a dozen parchment leaves of different ages, content and size. These all had been marked with a mysterious inscription: “PAZL 1671”, an abbreviation for Placidus Abt zu Lambach, Placidus Hieber, Abbot of Lambach (1640‒1678). The library of the Benedictine Abbey in Lambach was enriched with books and manuscripts over the centuries. However, by the 20th century, the troubled historical circumstances and the financial difficulties of the Abbey had made it necessary for them to sell the majority of their books. A significant amount of these was acquired by the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University, where they came to be studied by Robert G. Babcock and Lisa Fagin Davis and became the subject of two monographs. A dozen Lambach fragments were brought to Budapest at the end of the 19th century as items in Elemér Varjú’s 114-pieces large palaeographical collection. He had probably found the manuscripts in the Batthyaneum Library in Gyulafehérvár (today: Alba Iulia, Romania). Most codex leaves were used as binding material for the books of Abbot Placidus’ library probably in Lambach in the 17th century. This is proven by two fragments, which originate from the same codices as some pieces in the NSZL, and whose host books, in the binding of whichthey have been preserved, are known. One of them is preserved in Toronto, the other at Yale University. Both were printed in Munich in the 17th century. The second half of the paper consists of the description of the twelve manuscript fragments, most of which originate from liturgical books from a monastic milieu. Nevertheless, some folia from theological works and classical authors make the collection more varied.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.159 | 0.104 |
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".