Surveying Medieval Perceptions of Nature Using a Combination of Historical and Scientific Sources
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
In a modern world facing unprecedented anthropogenic environmental disaster, the academic interdisciplinarity is more relevant than ever. Environmental history is an area of study that requires the collaboration of historians and scientists alike. However, research is typically done from a one–sided perspective with little effort to understand the other. As many experts agree, geography heavily influences history.1 Environmental historians must use scientific proxy data regarding past ecological conditions in addition to a variety of historical sources, including religious texts, art, mythology, architecture, economics, and pieces of literature, to reconstruct past perception of nature. By doing so, the historian can gain a deeper insight into the scientific phenomena going on at the same time as historical events and movements to find potential connections. This can be seen in many different areas of environmental history research. This study analyzes various sources of medieval European animals, plants, water, and land use to gain an understanding of the diverse attitudes that people living during this time period held towards their environment. This ensures that environmental historians do not fall into the habit of resorting to approaches that make false generalizations, as leading figures in the field, such as Joyce E. Salisbury and Richard C. Hoffman, have criticized.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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