Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern scholarship asserts that the Babylonians were able to determine the synodic periods (discussed below) of the outer planets with exceptional accuracy. We experimented with a simple Maple mathematical software model to see if we could mathematically re-create the synodic cycles of Mars determined by Babylonian astronomers starting from around 400 BC. We sought first to understand whether unique planetary cycles known as Goal-Year periods which the Babylonians gleaned from centuries of observation were mathematically inevitable. We wanted to determine their accuracy quantitatively and find out if other plausible Goal-Year choices were available to them. The Babylonians also invented a method of using Goal-Years in error-canceling combinations to create long-term ‘exact’ periods that markedly improved the accuracy of their planetary predictions for centuries ahead. We tested whether the mathematical method surmised by scholars made sense in terms of our own program and whether we could replicate it. This paper is a report on the success of those efforts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
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 it