Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le jardin d'agrément de la Renaissance offrait aux femmes un accès inaccoutumé à un espace produit de l'art et où elles pouvaient exercer une puissance créatrice. Le statut ambigu du jardin, à la fois comme extension de l'espace public de la résidence et comme lieu retiré et plus intime, procure un site tout à fait adapté à l'expression dramatique des difficultés de la femme écrivain, déchirée entre les contraintes sociales et la volonté d'expression personnelle artistique. Pour Aemilia Lanyer, le jardin joue ces deux rôles. En tant que sanctuaire pour elle et son mécène, le jardin de Cookham inspire la vision utopique d'un monde acceptant son travail en tant que poète. Or, ce même jardin, par sa perméabilité à l'ordre social extérieur, laisse apercevoir également les limites du jardin comme vision utopique. Ultimement, Lanyer réfute au jardin sa capacité de servir d'analogie à son art comme refus de soumission aux iniquités de l'ordre.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".