Appunti sulla genesi redazionale dei <i>Dialoghi d'amore</i> di Leone Ebreo alla luce della critica testuale attuale e la tradizione manoscritta del suo terzo dialogo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'articolo propone un riassunto della critica testuale pubblicata fino ad oggi ed uno studio basilare dei testimoni superstiti dei Dialoghi d'amore di Leone Ebreo che si limitano soltanto al terzo dialogo per offrire delle conclusioni generali riguardo la genesi redazionale del testo e delle conclusioni sulla circolazione del testo prima della stampa dell'editio princeps a Roma nel 1535. Lo studio delle diverse redazioni appunta ad una progressiva toscanizzazione del testo e ad un allontanamento dai modelli fortemente latineggianti per la prosa filosofica della fine del Quattrocento ed inizio del Cinquecento. Questo rimaneggiamento del testo avrebbe avuto il suo momento culminante nell'intervento del curatore del testo, il senese Mariano Lenzi a Roma.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".