Bibliographic record
Abstract
possible addition to the dictionary, that of English-Italian equivalents.Then follow four poetic compositions to the patrons, and a list of his sources.Part three, the dictionary itself (23-792), is arranged alphabetically.Capitals indicate the Italian entry, and, as Florio says in his Note to the Reader, grammar is also present: specifically, he assumes that the first conjugation verbs, being regular, do not need separate lists of forms, and therefore only the infinitive appears.Irregular verbs are shown in forms of the first person present indicative, passato remoto and past participle, for ex., s.v.TRARRE, TRAGGo, TRASSI, TRATTo, as TIRARE.The definitions are rich, creative and will keep researchers busy for a long time.Entries include, among others, collocations, idioms, frequently used phrases, classical anthroponyms, Latinate spellings, exclamations.There is no doubt that this volume offers a close and fascinating look at one of the fundamental sources for our knowledge of English-Italian relations during the Elizabethan era which saw Italian culture and language as quintessential elements of sophistication.This is, after all, the main aim of the publications from the Lorenzo da Ponte Italian Library Series.It is a real pity that the general editors did not consider using the most up-to-date on-line technology for making this work available to a much wider public, since it has been digitized.In conclusion, this volume, a fascinating source of evidence not only about English-Italian relations, but also about English, learning and teaching vocabulary, individual linguistic creativity, encyclopedic and lexicographic interest.Although the modern multimodal world is not kind to language, Florio's liberal world view, his Sprachgefühl, and cultural and linguistic knowledge are an excellent example to help promote a renewed discussion about linguistic communication.Haller's Introduction and Florio's A Worlde of Wordes are therefore all the more important today and add a wealth of information to this discussion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.022 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".