Medieval comets: European and Middle Eastern Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is intended to be the first volume in a series devoted to an in-depth study of medieval European and middle-east comet records. With the aim of covering the entire medieval period, widely understood as corresponding to the 5th to 15th centuries AD, this first volume deals with the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. The rest will follow until the period is completed. Comet catalogs are a classic literary genre in the history of astronomy since before the 20th century. In them, the different authors presented reports of observations of different phenomena related to these celestial bodies but always presented a characteristic bias favorable to records from Asia, especially Chinese. This fact is understandable since, in those countries, there was a heritage of systematically writing chronicles of the successive reigns, pointing out astronomical events that, according to their traditions and beliefs, would influence the kingdom or the monarch in some way. This was not the case in Western countries, where we find fewer astronomical observations that are much more dispersed in works by different individual authors who often copy each other or, at least, tend to copy from the most prestigious ones. As a result, to date, there has been no research dedicated to exhaustively studying European literary sources, searching for elements that allow expanding the historical databases on medieval comets, and, at the same time, carrying out astronomical analyses that allow in some cases, the improvement or even the proposal of a set of orbital elements associated with comets.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it