Alessandro Palazzo and Anna Rodolfi, Prophecy and Prophets in the Middle Ages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars of medieval and early modern science have long been indebted to the editors of Micrologus and the Micrologus Library for a series of volumes that broaden the boundaries of the field and deepen our understanding of its contexts. This latest contribution to the Micrologus Library offers a wide view of medieval thinking about prophecy. As Palazzo and Rodolfi point out in their introduction to this collection of essays, while numerous scholars have written about prophecies and their various uses by medieval people, there has been far less attention given to philosophical and theological teachings about prophecy. Reviewed by: Laura Ackerman Smoller, Published Online (2022-07-31)Copyright © 2022 by Laura Ackerman SmollerArticle PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/aestimatio/article/view/39100/29786 Corresponding Author: Laura Ackerman Smoller,University of RochesterE-Mail: laura.smoller@rochester.edu
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".