Bibliographic record
Abstract
here is a folktale, most commonly shaped in the form of a parable, and most often involving three rings of symbolic value, representing Judaism, Christianity and Islam.This tale has been remolded, since its first written appearance around 1200 C.E., by poetic writers including Dante, Boccaccio, the Jewish mystic Abraham Abulafia and, centuries later, by Lessing.Besides appearing in various periods, it has occurred in many languages and cultures, among them Italian, French, Arabic, Hebrew, and German.Almost all the dozens of extant versions have been translated into English, or at the very least recounted in summary.As parable, a deliberate riddle-like quality pertains to it; and the elements of secrecy disclose a threefold layering, each hinging on a theodicy, if not also theurgical activity.At the first layer, each re-emergence of the tale takes place in a historical setting of severe clashes of religions, evidenced either through the preliminary feints by pen in bitter theological disputations, attacks and counterattacks, or, alternatively and eventually, through lunges of swords in bloody persecutions.Cloaked in the protective padding of allegory and
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".