Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this volume, Elizabeth and Thomas Cohen present an engaging and wide-ranging study of everyday life in the palaces, houses, and hovels of early modern Italy.As part of the Greenwood Press's "Daily Life" series, this book will serve admirably as a social history textbook, particularly given its intermingling of historiography with original research.Cohen and Cohen begin with fundamentals; they define each of the terms in the book's title ("daily life," "Renaissance," and "Italy") in an effort to erase any preconceptions a student might have about the history of this Mediterranean peninsula."Renaissance" is perhaps the stickiest of these terms, and since Cohen and Cohen use it in a strictly temporal sense, their Renaissance is naturally differ- ent from the traditional Burckhardtian understanding of blossoming individuali- ty, which they call an overstated cliché.Indeed, by comparison, the Cohens devel- op a persuasively rich and organic definition of Renaissance individualism which they link to networks of kith and kin, social institutions and hierarchies, all of which provided room for agency and "nuanced self-expression" (87).Agency, agonism, and the exigencies of honour take the foreground in this depiction of Renaissance Italians.Cohen and Cohen paint an image of a deeply familiar (or 'face-to-face') society, one that saw honour as a "conservative" ethic (99), allowingItalians to preserve the delicate bonds holding families, friends, and society togeth- er.At the same time, honour was constantly threatened by pervasive, uncontrol- lable, and often unexpected forces and so teetered in fragile balance between con-
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".