Intentions In The First Quarter Of The Fourteenth Century: Hervaeus Natalis Versus Radulphus Brito
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of logical intentions was not new when it was becoming an important object of study by the beginning of fourteenth century. The distinction between first and second intentions was not new; it is already found in Avicenna, and it can be traced back to Aristotle's primary and secondary substances. During the later Middle Ages, the discussion was focused on the exact nature and ontological status of intentions, and closely related issue of the role of intentions and intelligible species in cognitive process. In the process of differentiating intentions from species, acts and things, and differentiating first and second intentions from each other, the definitions of intentions became more elaborate and subdivisions more subtle. This chapter presents an overview of Hervaeus Natalis's discussion about second intentions with an opponent he does not mention by name, but who, judging from Hervaeus's description, might well have been his contemporary Radulphus Brito. Keywords: Avicenna; Hervaeus Natalis; logical intentions; ontological status; Radulphus Brito; second intentions
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it