Le Livre de Raziel du manuscrit Paris, BnF lat. 3666
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a Latin manuscript (Paris, BnF lat. 3666) dating from the third quarter of the 15th century and copied on paper from Northern Italy that is the subject of this thesis. It presents a treatise on the invocation of angels related to the Liber Razielis, one of the most widespread treatises on magic in the late Middle Ages. The first volume of our work contains an in-depth commentary on this text, articulated in five parts: a philological study of the manuscript and the corpus to which it belongs; a presentation of the ideas it contains; a survey of its translators and translation; an analysis of the specificities of the text in relation to its context (Hebrew then Latin), and of its relations with it; and finally a presentation of the reception and condemnations of the corpus. The second volume includes a critical edition of the Latin text, presented alongside the French translation. An alphabetical list of all the names of angels and powers contained in the manuscript is given in the appendix. The reader will discover through these two volumes that despite the avarice in information that seems to characterize our text at first glance (scarcity of elements of dating, of belonging to a person, to a milieu or to a place; absence of theoretical information on the modalities of functioning of the rituals; etc.), a thorough study will have allowed us to draw up a very complete portrait of it, whether from a philological, historical, sociological or phenomenological point of view.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.020 |
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".