Ahmad JabbÄr and Muhammad AballÄgh, HayÄt wamu'allafÄt Ibn al-BannÄ al-MurrakushÄ« ma'a nuÅÅ«Å ghayr manshÅ«ra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviews 251 1) and eb (JI, 430-1).as well as in a ser of mean molioo tablc:s (111.1211).In me fourtoentb centwy Isaac: Israeli (IIJ.754) ascribcs lo Abraham Zaridl a Iongitudc rOl' Toloclo of 62" (; ZSO) from Arin, a value whieh eom::sponds 10 lile 4;8• uscd by tablc:s CS' (scc 111.1191 fT).In another passage the same source stalc:s !hat Toloclo is 4• + 162/1080 (4;gI', equivalent 10 27;45 0 rmm the waler meridian).As for the latilude of Toledo, the most eommon value scems lo be 39;54 0 which appears bolh in tables (see 111, 997•1003,1125•1127, and in canons Cb (11, 431) and in a variant ofCe (JI, 730), This is about all 1 havc to say on the masterly work of Fritz Podersen.Other scholars wi1l be interesled in various othcr aspects of this edilion which opens many doors lo the sludy of an importanl medieval Europcan tradition.For my part 1was mainly inlerc:sted in exploring the information it contains about the astronomical woric ofwhat loo al-Hrim (O.ca.1200) calls al-jamda a/ru/aytuliyya ("the Toledan communityj.JulioSamsó Ahmad Jabbitr and Mübammad Aballágh, /jayá wa-mJl'a//aja /bn al•&nnli al-MurriGsJlf (sjcJ nufo nU$iiJ ghayr ff/(lfUhíira.Manshüril Kulliyyal al•Ad3b wa I•~iim al.lnsaniyya bi I-Ribil.Silsilal BubUth wa-Dirisát, raqm 29.Rabat, 200 l.238 pp.This is an important attempl lO wrile a biobibliographical survey of Ihe Moroccan mathematician and aslronomcr AbU 'l•cA bbas Abmad b.Mubammad b.CUthmatl al•Azdi, known as Ibn al•Bannli' al•Marrikushi.The authors have uscd all available published and unpublishcd primary source:s, among whieh tbey empbasizc thc importanee of me biobibliographical notes by two fourtecnth century Maghribi mathcmatjcians who wrote COItlJIlClluuie:s OD the To/MiI tflflii/ al-lW/ib of loo aHlanni': Ibo Haydür al•TidiIi (d.81611413) • in rus al•TamlIiI ji sharb al-Sutil)'!] (2002~J)
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.126 | 0.063 |
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".