Metamorphosis: The Changing Face of Ovid in Medieval and Early Modern Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rfcfnskìni er, or indeed with what is known of their subject.John O'Malley's elegant essay, "Paul Grendler and the Triumph of the Renaissance," weaves a sort of tapestry incorporating elements of Grendler's work along with reflections on historiography, on the nature of the Renaissance, and on the history of educational ideas and practice.Pivotalto the piece is a review of what the Renaissance was understood to be, especially in North America, over the last half-century or so.The now dominant consensus on the centrality of human- ism (and widespread concurrence in Kristeller's famous definition of it as based on the studia hiimanitatis) leads O'Malley to reflect on Grendler's scholarship and on just how important the various disciplines comprising the studia humanitatis have been in shaping education in Europe and the New World.The range of discussion is vast, but the piece never becomes a tour de force.O'Malley skilfully uses telling detail to make general points and adds an element of intimacy by referring to Grendler's career (and his own) as marking the arc of time over which the "tri- umph of the Renaissance" became manifest.Intimacy of a different kind runs through the essay of William J. Callahan, friend and colleague of Grendler's at the University of Toronto, whose biographi- cal sketch rounds out the volume.Rather than presenting a cursus honorum, Callahan summarizes the highlights of Grendler's scholarly publications, but focuses mainly on his personal iter^and the broad orientation of his life and work.The book is handsomely produced and includes illustrations, some of them colour plates, but their relationship with the essays is often indirect.It also shows signs of haste by way of (sometimes embarrassing) lapses in proofreading.These are small irritants, and they subtract little from the honour the volume does its dedicatee.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".