Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the Publisher: Discover what life was like for ordinary people living in Renaissance Italy. How was their society organized? What were their homes like? What dangers did they face? These and other questions are answered in detail to provide the reader with a unique view of the world of the Italian Renaissance. A multitude of settings and socioeconomic backgrounds are presented, from urban life to country life, from upper-class to peasant-class, to paint a full portrait of the different kinds of existence of people of this culture. Recipes, profiles of actual individuals, and over 40 illustrations help bring the period to life. Learn what they ate, what their homes were like, how they spent their leisure time, what their work was like, and much more. Modern readers will be surprised to find fundamental similarities between our lives today and the lives of these people living over 500 years ago, as well as to discover that many of the perceptions they may have of this time period are inaccurate.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.005 |
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 it