Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first part of this paper examines the history of solar eclipse maps of the world from the seventeenth century to present. It compares the path of centrality (totality or annularity) on a few antique maps with the corresponding path given by modern astronomy programs. The research examines the connections between cartography, astronomy, ancient history, chronology, and archaeology. Since the uncertainties of Delta-T are accountable for the accuracy of eclipse maps, special attention has been devoted to ancient key eclipses. Through the identification of the earliest solar eclipse traditions in the Near East, it recommends new chronological anchors to help astronomers, mapmakers, and editors of historical atlases. It suggests the acceptance of four eclipses of the Long Chronology between June 2353 B.C. and February 1659 B.C. for the rate of Earth’s rotation. Optimal combined selection of ancient historical eclipse records and traditions is presented, to obtain the best-fitting curve of Delta-T (clock-time error) that is the key for the accuracy of solar eclipse maps. Several early historical solar eclipses are identified with high probability.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".