"Colenda poesis, et inde Poete" <i>(Gen. deor. gent., XIV, 22, 11)</i>: Boccaccio, la novità della letteratura e la libertà dei poeti
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’articolo, dopo aver mostrato le esigenze storiche e culturali che spinsero intellettuali quali Mussato e Petrarca a ricodificare lo statuto della letteratura, si sofferma sulla difesa della poesia operata da Boccaccio. Il certaldese non solo giunge a un risultato innovativo, totalmente svincolato dai modelli medievali, ma, diversamente dal passato, prende in considerazione anche il problema del ruolo sociale dello scrittore e del rapporto con la committenza. Analizzando soprattutto i libri XIV e XV delle Genealogie, il contributo mette in luce le complesse metodologie e tecniche letterarie adottate per dirimere tali questioni. In particolare Boccaccio — inventandosi un committente fittizio, ricercando un pubblico dotto e avvertito, celebrando l’autonomia della poesia e sostenendo alcune nuove discipline come la lingua greca — traccia un modello di letterato indipendente e libero.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.011 |
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".