Nicholas Terpstra. Cultures of Charity: Women, Politics, and the Reform of Poor Relief in Renaissance Italy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Cultures of Charity: Women, Politics, and the Reform of Poor Relief in Renaissance Italy, Nicholas Terpstra provides a kaleidoscopic analysis of the varieties of poor relief in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Bologna. For much of the Renaissance, the Bolognese charitable context was a sprawling decentralized system subject to frequent change, hence Terpstra's consistent emphasis on the plurality of models adopted by the Bolognesi. He ties together the many threads in the book's survey by focusing on one confraternal institution in particular, the Opera Pia dei Poveri Mendicanti (OPM), created by papal decree in 1560. Although Terpstra makes occasional comparative forays into charitable practices in Florence, Genoa, Lyons, and Seville, his analysis is squarely focused on the OPM as informal hub and coordinator for a host of Bologna's smaller charitable services and activities. All but one chapter follow the OPM's activities through the turbulent Bolognese politics of the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, showing how its merchant and artisan members, many of whom had close ties to Bologna's senate and governing families, modified poor relief in ways that reflected the tensions and controversies of a rapidly changing social, economic, and political context.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".