MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Al-Jaghmını’s Short Tract on the Volumes of the Planetary and Stellar Bodies: Editio princeps and Translation

2023· article· en· W6922420310 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistorical Astronomy and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabicSection (typography)Order (exchange)Value (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines and provides an Arabic critical edition and English translation of the short tract attributed to Mahmūd al-Jaghmīnī (fl. 600/1200) that deals with the volumes of the celestial bodies and that may have been intended as a supplement to al-Mulakhkhas, his introduction to Ptolemaic theoretical astronomy. The work focuses on the sizes of the planetary bodies without addressing distances. The reader is provided with various lists such as which planetary bodies are above and below the Sun, the rounded volumes of bodies compared to the Earth, their sizes in descending order according to these volumes, and the body size of each measured in cubic parasangs (this being a mathematical calculation based on a derived parasang value for the Earth’s volume and the stated relative volume for each body). No sources are mentioned in the witnesses; however, Jaghmīnī evidently chose modified Ptolemaic values, despite the availability of both the Almagest and Planetary Hypotheses in the 13th century. Whether Jaghmīnī considered intermediary sources to be authentic Ptolemaic values or not is unclear. Three of the four manuscript witnesses used for the edition also include a brief additional section on measurement, which is an excerpt from Sinān Pāshā’s 15th-century gloss on Qāḍīzāde’s commentary on al-Mulakhkhas.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHistorical Astronomy and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207