Bibliographic record
Abstract
If it is a question of where to begin, medieval embryology and cosmogony answer speculatively, starting at the very begin-ning: they return the human to the site of so many primordial, intestinal involvements in the world—or rather, the very con-ception of worlds from “mere seeds and hopes,” as Ovid puts it in the Metamorphoses.1 At one end of the spectrum, embry-ological narratives effectively reverse engineer the organism, tracing back through time a fluid and concatenating series of molecular events, topological movements, and intensities that may be missed only because they result in such solid-seeming entities. In the fourteenth century, Nicole Oresme marvels at the contingencies involved in the process, expressing surprise that a human being comes about at all, since “error can hap-pen from many causes but only in one way can it complete all things successfully—and for this one way many things are required.” Even when things pan out, the wrenching epigenet-ic change undergone by the embryo is extreme: “between [Socrates] at his birth and at his maturity . . . there is surely a greater difference, if you consider it well, than there is be-tween a pig and a dog at birth, or between an ass and a horse or mule, or a crow and an eagle, or between a wolf and a dog, all of which are of different species.”2 It is as if the human were originally constituted as some kind of menagerie, espe-cially in light of the Aristotelian thesis that the embryo moves through successive stages of micro-speciation (vegetal, ani-mal, human). At the other end of the spectrum, medieval cosmogony regularly describes a cosmic birth that is equally fraught: an account of everything originally abandoned to chaotic flux before being resolved into the developed Ptolema-ism that we all associate with the Middle Ages. The methodo-logical challenge of beginning is the same, tarrying with semi-nal, gestational moments anterior to being. It is to speculate about what is not yet, rather than what is
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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".