MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382991795 · doi:10.5406/21521026.40.2.01

Later Medieval Psychology

2023· article· en· W4382991795 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Szlachta

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of Philosophy Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectSoulDeliberationMiddle AgesAction (physics)EpistemologyPhilosophyTheologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The rational faculties of intellect and will were at the heart of many important issues in the Middle Ages, including the relationship between deliberation and free choice, the explanation of intentional action, and the movement of the body by the rational soul. In the contributions that follow, Tobias Hofffmann, Sonja Schierbaum, and Can Laurens Löwe address these issues, respectively. In addition to clarifying various aspects of later medieval psychology, Hoffmann, Schierbaum, and Löwe each demonstrate the continuity between contemporary philosophy and the philosophy of the later Middle Ages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory of Philosophy QuarterlySame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207