MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397452176 · doi:10.33137/rr.v38i1.8746

The Narrative Heart of the Renaissance

2002· article· fr· W2397452176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William W. E. Slights

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesThe RenaissanceArtPhilosophyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les fictions de tels écrivains que Boccace, Dante, Shakespeare et Harvey ont été influencées par la redécouverte par les anatomistes de la Renaissance des documents de l’Antiquité sur la dissection, ainsi que par des
 redéfinitions théologiques du cœur comme le site d’intériorité spirituelle. Ces représentations diverses du cœur apportent de façon paradoxale du réconfort et de la terreur à la fois, en juxtaposant l’incertitude spirituel et le corps matériel. On en obtient un aperçu de la signification de la condition humaine dans un monde de plus en plus perturbé par l’avènement de la science médicale moderne.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistory of Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207