Epilogue: Experiencing Experiences—Four Encounters with Experience in the Medieval Islamicate World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This epilogue explores and sometimes expands on many of the recurrent themes of this volume. It takes seriously the editors’ observation about the subject-rootedness of experience as understood in the medieval Islamicate world and about the notion of internalized objectivity as a lens for reassessing our histories of science. It argues that rather than holding to our current sharp, even arbitrary, divide between the objective and subjective, it is more fruitful to approach Islamicate science as one that views the relation between the experience of the individual scientists and the standards of a given scientific community as forming an ecosystem. Using the interpretive frame set out in the volume’s introduction, the epilogue supplements and contextualizes the essays to show that both subject-rootednessand internalized objectivity were operative throughout the scientific endeavors of medieval Islamic science. Against this background, a number of disciplines that have been excluded from or marginalized in our histories of science—such as grammar, theology, astrology, and dream interpretation—emerge as areas of scientific and historical interest.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".