Come nasce un libro d’abaco. Struttura, tradizione e storia del ms. Firenze, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, II.IX.57
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper offers a new codicological, palaeographical and textual analysis of ms. Firenze, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, II.IX.57, which previous studies have considered to be the autograph of the Florentine mathematician and astronomer Paolo dell’abaco or, in any case, a product of his abacus school around 1340. In particular, it demonstrates that ms. II.IX.57 is a complex manuscript, which was not conceived as a single work, but consists of various booklets made up and compiled with texts of practical mathematics, astrology and medicine at different times, thus allowing us to appreciate what products circulated within an abacus school. A comparison with the textual and material tradition of other manuscripts transmitting the same texts shows that the booklets did not immediately circulate outside the school and suggests that they were collected together, becoming a coherently ordered collection, only at a later date, probably as part of an operation to recover materials from a school dating back to the second quarter of the 14th century. Since two manuscripts refer to them as coming from ‘Paolo dell’abaco’s book’, it is possible that the booklets originated from his school, but only a thorough study of the texts will be able to prove it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 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".