A Commentary on the Categories from the School of Alberic in Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria 2087: An analysis of the manuscript
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria 2087, the only known manuscript preserving the anonymous twelfth-century commentary on Aristotle’s Categories known as C15, traditionally linked to the School of Alberic. While C15 has been studied for its logical content, the manuscript itself has received little attention. Through a codicological and palaeographical analysis, this study reconstructs the material history, structure, and context of production of the codex. The manuscript is shown to be largely a palimpsest, copied on reused parchment possibly originating from an earlier grammatical handbook, including fragments of Eutyches’ De verbo. Analysis of the ruling, mise en texte, and scripts – three hands in a transitional Caroline minuscule –supports a dating to the second or third quarter of the twelfth century and suggests a North-Western European school context. The material features of the codex confirm its origin as a study manuscript produced within a medieval educational environment closely linking grammatical and logical teaching.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".