Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sheltered from the stench of old Barcelona's narrow streets, in the stony darkness of the Aragonese royal palace, a remarkable scene began to unfold in the summer of 1263. It was described by an anonymous scribe whose report was subsequently registered in the crown archive: In the year of the lord 1263, on the thirteenth day of the kalends of August [Friday July 20], the lord king of the Aragonese and many other barons, prelates, religious and knights were present in the palace of the lord king at Barcelona. Since Moses, called “the magister ,” a Jew, had been called by the same lord king at the request of the friars Preacher from Girona, and was himself present in the same place with many other Jews reputed to be the most expert among the other Jews, friar Paul (after deliberation with the lord king and certain other friars Preacher and Minor who were present) … proposed to the said Jewish magister that with the help of God he would prove the following points by means of commonly known and authenticated Scriptures in use and authenticated by the Jews. Thus began the celebrated “Barcelona disputation,” which has become one of the best known of all medieval theological confrontations between Christianity and Judaism. On (perhaps) four separate occasions, spread out over a week or more, the converted Jew turned Dominican friar Paul Christiani and the venerable rabbi Moses ben Nachman of Girona (also known as Nachmanides, or the Ramban) met before the king and others to debate theological issues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.014 |
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".