Re-Inventions: Essays on Hellenistic and Early Roman Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 2003, Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) hosted a conference organized by the editor of the present volume, Philippa Lang: 'Reinventions: Hellenistic and Early Roman Science' (http://www. classics.emory.edu/events/reinventions.htm).The conference, which I attended as an audience member, provided the opportunity-too rare in the United States-for the gathering of scholars working on the history of ancient science.This conference was of particular value, as it encouraged research in a rather under-studied period that was crucial in preserving older knowledge and in formulating new.Thus, it was in this period that the ancient sciences and philosophyand their many subfields and sects-re-defined and re-invented themselves in relation to one another and to the authoritative figures and practices of the past.Three of the five essays of the present volume were given at the conference, and two are new contributions by conference speakers.Sir Geoffrey Lloyd gave the keynote address, which is the first essay of the volume: 'New Issues in the History of .As many readers of Aestimatio will know, for more than a decade Lloyd has devoted himself to the study of Chinese and of Chinese science.Here he calls for a 'genuinely comparative' and 'ecumenical' approach to the history of science that is alert to the differences in the development of scientific traditions in different cultures.It is only by this means, Lloyd contends, that scholars can test their accounts of how and why science developed as it did in their 'home' culture, and avoid the temptation to view such developments as inevitable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".