Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question “Where was the Russian Abelard?” is not such a simple one to answer. It could very well be rephrased, “Why was there an Abelard at all?” For an answer to this last question, we should look at Abelard's own writings and the influences on him. In that way, we may get some clues as to why Abelard appears where he does and when he does. In Paris, Peter Abelard attended the lectures on logic and rhetoric of William of Champeaux, with whom he came into conflict, and the lectures on theology of Anselm of Laon, who expelled Abelard from his school in 1113.2 Abelard presents his own view of universals within the context of his Glosses on Porphyry , a com-mentary on Boethius's translation of and commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge . In each of his four major works on logic, parts of which have been lost, Abelard discusses Porphyry's work. Porphyry was a pagan Neoplatonist and had written an Introduction to the Categories of Aristotle (called by medieval writers the Isagoge ), which became a standard manual on logic in medieval Western Europe. The Canadian translator Edward W. Warren stated that the influence of the Isagoge is attribut-able: “(1) to its opening page where Porphyry lists a few deeper issues concerning the kind of existence enjoyed by generic and specific terms, (2) to its translation by Marius Victorinus and by Boethius, and (3) to its publication as the initial treatise in subsequent Latin editions of Aristotelian logical works. The Isagoge became a standard preface to work in Aristotle's logic.” John of Salisbury (ca. 1115– 1180), in his Metalogicon , describes how Porphyry was used in the twelfth century: “One who withdraws what he never deposited, and harvests what he never sowed, is far too severe and harsh a master, as also is one who forces (poor) Porphyry to cough up the opinions of all philosophers, and will not rest content until the latter's short treatise teaches everything that has ever been written.” The hyperbole notwithstanding, it is well documented that the Isagoge was a work that heavily influenced Western European thought as the result of its being the equivalent of an introductory textbook to Aristotle's logic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".