Bibliographic record
Abstract
On Plants 1 Problems of Authorship and DatingA full study of the complex and fascinating history of the transmission of this text can be found in Drossaart Lulofs-Poortman 1989.Here are the bare bones of the story.The original Greek of this work is not extant, but this work enjoyed great success in the Aristotelian tradition since it was translated into Syriac, Arabic, Hebrew, and Latin.A Greek retroversion based on the Latin version was made in the second half of the thirteenth century ad.This retroversion is the text printed in the Bekker edition of Aristotle. 1 The historical and philological relevance of the extant Greek text is negligible. 2 Far more important is the Arabic translation made by Isâq ibn Hunayn (ca.900 ad)most likely after the lost Syriac translation.This Arabic translation was the basis for both the Latin translation produced by Alfred Sarashel (ca.1200 ad) and the Hebrew translation prepared by Qalonymos ben Qalonymos (1314 ad).The Arabic tradition ascribes our text to "Nicolaus," who is said to have explained (i.e., commented on) the lost work on plants by Aristotle.3 I have already indicated that the relation between our extant text and the lost work by Aristotle on plants is, to say the least, poorly understood.4 H.J. Drossaart Lulofs, who is also the last editor of our work, believes 1 Bekker 1831: 815a10-830b4.2 Drossaart Lulofs 1957: 75.Compare Drossaart Lulofs-Poortman 1989: "On the whole, it must be admitted that [the Greek translation] is even less reliable than Alfred's Latin version.The 'law' that in each subsequent translation the text deteriorates appears to be inexorable, and the naive expectation of the Greek [translator] that he could restore a lost work of Aristotle for his compatriots was not realized" (575).3 Hağği Khalîfa (died in 1658 ad), Lexicon bibliographicum V, p. 16 nr.10564: "The book on plants of Aristotle in two treatises which Nicolaus explained and Ishâq ibn Hunayn translated with correction by Tâbit ibn Qurra."The book on plants is attributed to Nicolaus by Ibn al-Nadîm (254.1-4Flügel) and Ibn al Qiftî (336.5-12Lippert).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.009 |
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".