Una, nessuna e centomila: le mani di Heirci di Auxerre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work surveys the annotations in the margins of several manuscripts attributed to Heiric of Auxerre, starting with those on the folia of the Melk, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 412. By pointing out graphic differences in the annotations present in these manuscripts, it will argue that hitherto generally accepted attribution to Heiric has to be seriously reconsidered and probably rejected. In reviewing the different evidence, the study detects the hand that Bernard Bischoff had traced in a group of witnesses and had attributed to Heiric in two additional codices presently in Orléans (Orléans, Médiathèque, mss. 179 and 181); these were transcribed in the second quarter of the 9th century in Fleury and remained there, where they were annotated. The two new attributions lead to the conclusion that this hand – traditionally considered to be Heiric’s – is rather that of an anonymous scholar active in Fleury in the second half of the 9th century.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".