Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hand defenses from the early 1420s consisted of plate gauntlets whose elements were riveted to the leather base. First mentions about gauntlets created from small metal plates appeared in the last decade of the 13th c. One of gives a description about gauntlets made by the armourers in Paris in 1296, which were made in the same manner as coat-of-plates. Metal plates were riveted to the textile or leather base or between layers of material. In form they were familiar to the pieces which can often be seen on illuminations or tombstones from first quarter of the 14th c. in Western Europe. They remained in common use until the third quarter of this century. Around the year 1350 demi-gauntlets similar in shape to hourglass appeared. They were usually created from one piece of metal. They protected the wrist and had usually anatomically formed metacarpus. Fingers were protected by small overlapping metal scales riveted to the leather stripes which were attached to the gauntlet’s metacarpus. After the year 1370, demi-gauntlets became the dominant form of hand protection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".