MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1832097081 · doi:10.33137/q.i..v35i2.23622

Antonio Scurati e <i>Il bambino che sognava la fine del mondo</i>: uno scrittore ai confini tra realta, finzione e autofinzione

2015· article· it· W1832097081 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anna Chiafele

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaderni d italianistica · 2015
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il seguente saggio intende analizzare un romanzo di Antonio Scurati: Il bambino che sognava la fine del mondo (2009). Quest’opera, ai confini tra realtà, finzione e autofinzione, si inserisce perfettamente all’interno del dibattito sul New Realism. Scurati non ci offre solamente la rielaborazione romanzesca di due storie di presunta pedofilia, ma ci propone una spiegazione di come una macchinazione possa essere montata, a livello nazionale, grazie ai giornali, alla televisione ed a altri mezzi di comunicazione. Partendo da alcune teorie di Jean Baudrillard sul simulacro e sulla iperrealtà, vengono qui messi in risalto alcuni dei meccanismi che generano una realtà simulata, la quale risulta essere più reale del reale e trasporta l’essere umano all’interno di un costante reality show. In una realtà trasformatasi in reality show svaniscono i labili confini tra attori e spettatori, tra vittime e carnefici, tra accusatori e accusati, e tra realtà e finzione e questo crea smarrimento in una società postindustriale quale la nostra, in cui si vive attanagliati da una paura le cui origini sono difficili da identificare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.011

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaderni d italianisticaSame topicEducational and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207