Omnia appetunt bonum: l'interprétation de la Lectvra cvm qvestionibvs in Ethicam Nouam et Veterem du Pseudo-Johannes Peckham
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo examina a primeira Lectio de um comentário da Ética Nicomaquéia escrito cerca de 1240-124 por um Mestre de Artes de Paris (Pseudo-Peckam). O adágio « omnia appetunt bonum » (todas as coisas desejam o bem), que se encontra nas primeiras linhas da Ética é aí analisado minuciosamente. Outras interpretações ao longo do século XVIII continuam ou transformam a elucidação de Pseudo-Peckam. Seus argumentos são reconsiderados frequentemente pelos comentadores posteriores. Essa Lectio é relacionada a outros textos da Faculdade de Artes através do tema do homem como um microcosmo. AbstractThis paper examines the first Lectio of the 'Pseudo-Peckham's commentary on Nicomachean Ethics, written ca.1240-1244 by a Parisian Arts master. The adage "omnia appetunt bonum" (all things strive for the good) that lies in the first lines of the Ethics is there meticulously analysed. Other interpretations all along 13th century continue or transform the Pseudo-Peckhams' elucidation and his arguments are often reconsidered by later commentators. This Lectio is related to other texts from the Arts Faculty through the subject of man as a microcosm. RésuméCet article examine la première Lectio d'un commentaire de l'Éthique à Nicomaque écrit vers 1240-1244 par un maître ès arts de Paris (Pseudo-Peckham). L'adage « omnia appetunt bonum » (toutes choses désirent le bien) qui se trouve dans les premières lignes de l'Éthique y est analysé minutieusement. D'autres interprétations au long du XIIIe siècle continuent ou transforment l'élucidation du Pseudo-Peckham, ses arguments sont reconsidérés souvent par les commentateurs postérieurs. Finalement, cetteLectio se relie à d'autres textes de la Faculté des arts à travers le thème de l'homme microcosme.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".