Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution is an essay in Translation and Translation Studies, rather than a critical review article, and it is written in Italian. The reasons for both circumstances follow below. 1.to present to the Italian-reading public some specimens — 5 poems — from a new (as yet unpublished) translation into Italian of the modernist master of German-language poetry R. M. Rilke's Sonette an Orpheus (1922); and2.to illustrate to the Italian-reading public — well-versed, for cultural reasons, in 20th-century avantgarde theory and practice — the specific / curious feature of what could be called Rilke's “anti-futurism”: a combination of his “philanthropy” and “technophobia.” 1.a running presentation and commentary on 5 of Rilke's Sonnets to Orpheus, where presentation and commentary are intercut with the actual quotes (German original + interlinear new Italian translation) to which they refer; and2.an Appendix, where the 5 German originals and the corresponding new translations are re-composed and presented synoptically, facing each other. This contribution being an essay in Translation and Translation Studies, rather than a critical review article, it abstains from developing a scholarly discourse within the specific field of Germanistik, which would anyway not be appropriate for a publication in Italian Studies; and it is written in Italian, since the new unpublished Italian translation must be center stage here both as a product in itself and as a tool to highlight some special features of Rilke so far neglected in previous Italian translations.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".