<i>New Perspectives on Thomas of Ireland’s Manipulus florum: Nouvelles perspectives sur la Manipulus florum de Thomas d’Irlande</i>, ed. Jacquelle Hamesse, María-José Muñoz Jiménez, and Chris L. Nighman. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2019, x, 254 pp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In the first volume of his Religious Orders (1948), David Knowles commented on how mendicant texts (once thought “to lack all interest and significance”) had come to be seen as possessing a “keen and powerful intelligence” resembling that of Parmenides or Aristotle. In a contribution to The English Library before 1700 (1958), R. M. Wilson of Sheffield described Manipulus florum as “completed in 1306 by a certain Thomas of Ireland” and said no more. So, this Toronto volume is proof of an astonishing revolution. Writers formerly all but forgotten now receive minute investigation by scholars of international repute. The objective is praiseworthy. It makes the thoughts and feelings of the Middle Ages more familiar, above all as regards medieval attitudes to classical and patristic authorities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".