Franco Ratto, Materiali per un confronto: Hobbes — Vico. Studi sul Linguaggio, sulla Comunicazione e sull'Apprendimento. Collana diretta da Roberto Fedi e Marcel Danesi. Guerra Edizioni, Perugia, 2000. Pp. 181. __________. Hobbes tra scienza della politica e la teoria delle passioni. Legas, Brooklyn, N. Y., Ottawa, Ontario, y Toronto, Ontario, 2000. p. 160.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desde hace años la actividad intelectual de Franco Ratto sigue dos direcciones interrelacionadas entre ellas. una, de carácter organizativo, consiste en la promoción de congresos internacionales sobre la obra de Giambattista Vico. Concebidos como encuentros interdisciplinarios éstos aspiran a poner en contacto especialistas provenientes de diferentes mundos culturales y de diferentes ámbitos de investigación. En la dirección más propiamente científica de sus estudios, Franco Ratto se dedica totalmente a la compilación bibliográfica y al estudio de los problemas de la historia de la filosofía como éstos aparecen en la obra de Giambattista Vico. Y de Vico lo que mayormente le interesa son las aberturas a los distintos contextos históricos. Los dos recorridos de trabajo divergen sólo aparentemente entre ellos. En realidad, se entrecruzan y acaban por identificarse: en el uno y en el otro caso Ratto trata de lanzar un puente y abrir un diálogo o de establecer una "confrontación" entre distintas cuestiones, distintas perspectivas críticas y distintos contextos. Palabras-clave: Filosofia; Hobbes; Vico;
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".