Bibliographic record
Abstract
To research and write on an obscure figure like Peter of Damascus has proved both rewarding and challenging.The rewards came with uncovering new and previously undiscovered connections between Peter and twelfth-century Byzantium, identifying new texts and pieces of information related to him, as well as with the joy of spending so much time concentrating exclusively on his spiritual theology.The challenges came in trying to stay connected with the larger discipline of Byzantine studies, when a lack of peers with whom I could share my discoveries made it difficult for me to keep the forest in view for the trees.However, I have enjoyed the work, and if my efforts serve to stimulate interest in Peter among Byzantinists as well as scholars and students of Christian spirituality, then it will have been time well spent.For understanding both the opportunities and the challenges presented by the project, I wish to thank especially T. Allan Smith, csb, of the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, both for overseeing my first foray into the thought of Peter of Damascus and for his support over the past eight years while I have continued researching and writing on this neglected Byzantine spiritual theologian.As all authors acknowledge, the writing of a book is impossible without the support of many people.I would like to thank my sons, Brendan and Nathanael, for bringing so much joy to the end of each day of researching and writing.Knowing that they would be at home each evening waiting for me helped to get me through many days when I would rather have forsaken the project.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.342 | 0.233 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".