Bibliographic record
Abstract
A discussion of La poésie astrologique dans la littérature grecque et latine by Vanessa Monteventi that contextualizes this meritorious yet imperfect monograph in modern research on ancient astrological poetry and focuses on the whole range of its philological, astronomical, and astrological aspects. It is shown that Monteventi’s title promises a broader perspective than what her book actually covers. A more fitting title would be La poésie didactique astrologique dans la littérature grecque et latine de l’Antiquité. Numerous poems relevant to her actual title yet not taken into account by the author are collected here for the first time ever without any pretense to completeness [see Appendix 2, p. 62], and their relevant characteristics briefly sketched, including discussions of two anything but trivial mathematical riddles contained in anonymous astrological poems. Besides a plethora of details that call for minor addenda/corrigenda, a few of Monteventi's topics are discussed in depth, such as the autobiographical horoscope by the first didactic poet writing under the pseudonym of Manetho and the sources of the smaller astrological poem by John Camaterus. How to cite: Heilen, S. “Greek and Latin Astrological Poetry Reconsidered”. Aestimatio: Sources and Studies in the History of Science (2023) 4: dsco2 1–74
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".