Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I compare the astronomical poem by Aratus called Phaenomena (third century bc) with the citations of a work of the same name by Eudoxus that are found in Hipparchus’ only extant work, In Arati et Eudoxi phaenomena (second century bc). I argue that, contrary to what most scholars maintain, Aratus’ poem is not a mere versification of Eudoxus’ work but a version enriched in style, language, and content. Indeed, Aratus’ Phaenomena is a paradigmatic reflection of the astronomical knowledge of the period in which it was written and a comprehensive, non-technical presentation of the celestial phenomena known in his time. It was, as I show, a very popular work, so popular that Hipparchus was moved to correct it in the hope of establishing himself as the authority in astronomy and prose as its proper medium. Published Online (2021-04-30)Copyright © 2021 by Stamatina Mastorakou Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/aestimatio/article/view/37591/28593 Corresponding Author: Stamatina MastorakouMax Planck Institute for the History of ScienceE-Mail: smastorakou@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".