MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379206778 · doi:10.1080/00033790.2023.2218379

Anachronisms in the History of Mathematics: Essays on the Historical Interpretation of Mathematical Texts <b>Anachronisms in the History of Mathematics: Essays on the Historical Interpretation of Mathematical Texts</b> , edited by Niccolò Guicciardini, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2021, xxvi + 366 pp., $140 (Hardback), ISBN 978-1-108-83496-4

2023· article· en· W4379206778 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Archibald

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnachronismAnnalsInterpretation (philosophy)History of scienceHistory of mathematicsHistoryClassicsLiteratureEpistemologyPhilosophyMathematicsArtMathematics educationLinguisticsPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If anachronism is an historian's unforgivable sin, as Lucien Fèbvre told us long ago, it is nonetheless unavoidable, if only in the sense that we are constrained by our own point of view, anchored ...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of ScienceSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207