La présence de la littérature française renaissante dans les catalogues des ventes aux enchères en Hollande au XVIIe siècle. Bilan et perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does one gauge the reception of French Renaissance authors in the Netherlands? Auction catalogues from private libraries are certainly the most useful tools for this endeavour, and we have knowledge of them thanks to studies by many scholars. The project Book Sales Catalogues of the Dutch Republic—by the Royal Library of The Hague and of the University of Leiden—made available to researchers a large corpus of sales catalogues from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Currently, the microfilm is being digitized by Brill editions and will soon be available on the Internet. After having studied the Dutch reception of Marot, Rabelais, Montaigne, Du Bartas, Desportes and Molière, the author of this article proposes the synthetic review of this approach for the study of literary reception. The author evaluates the material and methodological problems, the established knowledge and new perspectives, focusing on the importance of these catalogues to both contemporary and modern bibliographical practice. The present article treats mainly sales catalogues from private libraries, saving sales catalogues of bookstore stock, printers’ stock, and other assorted bookseller catalogues for another study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".