Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Medieval philosophers used the language of cause and effect as frequently as philosophers do now. Viewed very, very broadly, they had in mind a similar notion, at least when they were speaking of efficient causality (and even the three other types of Aristotelian cause — material, formal, and final — can be brought loosely under this concept): causes are in some sense prior to their effects, which they produce and the existence of which they explain. Viewed more closely, medieval notions of causality are sharply different from contemporary ones, and these differences are especially evident in explicit discussions of causation. This article discusses the idea of essential causation. It looks at the aspect of medieval thought about causation that seems to come closest to the modern debates instigated by Hume, the supposed medieval occasionalists such as the Islamic thinker al-Ghazali (1058–1111) and the Parisian Arts Master and student of theology, Nicholas of Autrecourt (d. 1369), and the critiques of occasionalism offered by Averroes (c.1126–98), who wrote in Muslim Spain, and Aquinas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".