MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Michel Scot: Liber particularis, Liber physonomie. Edition critique, introduction et notes by Oleg Voskoboynikov

2021· article· en· W3211395408 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Juste

Bibliographic record

VenueAestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrologyEmperorClassicsHumanitiesEncyclopediaCritical editionNousLicenseArtArabicPhilosophyHistoryAncient historyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Michael Scot (d. ca 1235) has long been known as an important figure in medieval intellectual history. Translator (from Arabic) of Greek scientific and philosophical texts, notably of al-Bitrūjī and Averroes, he spent the last years of his life as an astrologer at the court of the Holy Roman emperor Frederick II (1220–1250) in Palermo. It is at the request of the emperor that Scot composed his major work, the Liber introductorius, a massive encyclopaedia in three parts dealing respectively with astrology and astronomy (the Liber quatuor distinctionum), cosmology (the Liber particularis), and physiognomy (the Liber physonomie). Reviewed by: David Juste, Published Online (2021-08-31)Copyright © 2021 by David JusteThis open access publication is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND) Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/aestimatio/article/view/37731/28732 Corresponding Author:David Juste,Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, MunichE-Mail: djuste@ptolemaeus.badw.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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueAestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of ScienceSame topicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical StudiesFrench-language works237,207