MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285523760 · doi:10.3726/med.2021.01.104

Nicola Polloni, <i>The Twelfth-Century Renewal of Latin Metaphysics: Gundissalinus’s Ontology of Matter and Form</i>. Durham Medieval and Renaissance Monographs and Essays, 6. Durham: Institute of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, Durham University; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2020, 318 pp.

2021· article· en· W4285523760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raymond Cormier

Bibliographic record

VenueMediaevistik · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphysicsContext (archaeology)ClassicsThe RenaissancePhilosophyMedieval LatinIdeologyHumanismLiteratureTheologyHistoryArtArt historyLawArchaeologyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The study of metaphysics in the medieval era most often evokes figures like thirteenth and fourteenth centuries luminaries such as Thomas Aquinas, William Ockham, or Duns Scotus. But even before that time, an important meeting of Western philosophy with Arabic ideology established an early attempt to systematize Latin metaphysics. Such a project was enhanced by a team of translators working principally in peaceful Toledo, Spain, in the mid-twelfth century. The focus of the work to hand regarding the renewal of Latin metaphysics is on a groundbreaking figure in this dizzying and far-reaching context, one Dominicus Gundissalinus, at once a reconciler and synthesizer of a stream of thought traceable to Plato and Boethius.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueMediaevistikSame topicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical StudiesFrench-language works237,207