MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7112869812

Ḍuriba bi-Mālṭa ‘minted in Malta’ : deciphering the Kufic legend on the Fāṭimid quarter dinar

2016· article· en· W7112869812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOAR@UM (University of Malta) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval History and Crusades
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)LegendIslamNumismaticsGold standard (test)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until the acquisition, by the Central Bank of Malta in 2010, of the gold Fāṭimid quarter dinar, it was inconceivable that Arab Malta could have had its own coinage. Helen W. Brown, in her article about the coins of Muslim Malta, states that “It is not, on the basis of present evidence, suggested that any Muslim coins were struck in Malta itself.” Quite obviously, this acquisition was bound to revive memories of the ‘great Mdina hoard’ of gold coins found in 1698 and known from the descriptions of Ciantar’s Malta Illustrata in 1771.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOAR@UM (University of Malta)Same topicMedieval History and CrusadesFrench-language works237,207