MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7034393243

Una elecció de secretaris de l'aljama de jueus de Cervera en 1485

2006· article· en· W7034393243 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalanJudaismDocumentationVotingQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While documentation related to the Jews who inhabited Cervera for centuries\nis in abundant supply, texts that shed light on the internal running of the\nJewish aljama are rather scarce. Recently, however, such a text has been unearthed. Written in Catalan on Saturday 23 July 1485, it consists of the minutes\nof a meeting and records the election of the two secretaries of the aljama, \nplus that of another person, referred to as the «third party», who would be required\nto intervene in the process of choosing councillors in the event of any\ndisagreement between the two secretaries.\nAccording to the document, a transcript of which is provided at the end of\nthe article, the electoral procedure was as described below.\nOn the aforementioned date, a meeting took place in the school in Cervera’s\nupper Jewish quarter (the usual venue for such activities). The Jews in attendance\nwere Mossé de Quercí and Benvenist Sullam, in their capacity as secretaries;\nthe doctor Cresques Adret, the doctor Issac de Quercí, the doctor Jucef\nCavaller, Jucef Baró Creixent, Bonjuà Adret, Bonet Bellshom and Issac Samuel\nSullam, in their capacity as councillors; and the doctor Samuel Cavaller, Jafudà\nde Quercí and the doctor Jacob de Quercí, in their capacity as three of the largest\nlandowners and, consequently, three of the highest taxpayers. \nFirst of all, they swore an oath, one after another, whilst touching a text containing\nthe Ten Commandments, in the hope that they would choose wisely\nwhen electing two secretaries from among the Jews of Cervera’s aljama. Voting \nwas conducted in secret. Jucef Cavaller was elected as one of the secretaries by\nvirtue of receiving the greatest number of votes, while there was a tie between\nIssac de Quercí and Bonjuà Adret for the second secretary’s post. Votes were\ncast again to decide between the two. At this time of asking, Issac de Quercí\nreceived the most votes and was thus elected secretary.\nThe two elected secretaries, Jucef Cavaller and Issac de Quercí, subsequently\nswore an oath, whilst touching the scroll, to govern the aljama in a fitting manner,\nto act in its best interests and to protect the privileges it had been granted\nby various monarchs over the course of time.\nWith the two new secretaries having been elected and sworn in, the outgoing\nsecretaries, Mossé de Quercí and Benvenist Sullam, designated five Jews\nfrom among the largest landowners and highest taxpayers, specifically the three\nmentioned earlier (Jafudà de Quercí, Samuel Cavaller and Jacob de Quercí)\nplus Mossé de Quercí and Mossé Sullam de Saporta.\nNext, the two secretaries (presumably the outgoing secretaries), the seven\ncouncillors and five of the largest landowners swore the usual oath and elected\nthe «third party», i.e. the person who would intervene in the councillor selection\nprocess in the event of the two secretaries failing to reach an agreement. Jafudà\nde Quercí received the greatest number of votes and was elected to the post.\nThe content of the document ends at this point. It appears that the councillors\nwere chosen at a later date. By way of conclusion, it can be said that the text described herein (a transcript of which is provided) is of great interest in that it\nreveals how the secretaries of Cervera’s Jewish aljama were elected in the final\nperiod of its existence. A mere seven years later, royal orders would lead to the\naljama vanishing forever, along with all the others on the Iberian peninsula.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Drug Discovery Methods→French-language works237,207→