Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume. — Alors que la reception du motif de la catabase d’Orphee dans les lettres europeennes a ete etudiee en profondeur, curieusement la survie du mythe dans la litterature portugaise n’a pas joui de la meme attention, en particulier en dehors du monde lusophone. Cet article a precisement pour but de combler en partie cette lacune en abordant les reecritures du mythe dans la poesie portugaise de la Renaissance. Il commence avec la premiere occurrence du theme dans le Cancioneiro Geral ( Chansonnier general , 1516) – une compilation de quelque mille poemes d’auteurs des XVe et XVIe siecles due a Garcia de Resende – et se prolonge dans les œuvres de poetes connus et moins connus du XVIe siecle portugais, a l’instar de Diogo Brandao, Diogo Bernardes et Francisco de Sa de Miranda, pour s’achever sur l’interpretation magistrale de la catabase d’Orphee par Luis Vaz de Camoes, l’auteur des Lusiades . Abstract. — Retellings of the Orphic katabasis have been extensively studied for most of European literature. Curiously, the story’s appearance in Portuguese works has been much less researched, particularly outside Portugal. This paper aims to fill this gap in part by exploring the survival of the theme in Renaissance Portuguese poetry, beginning with the first occurrence of the motif in the so-called Cancioneiro Geral (1516) – a collection of almost one thousand poems of various 15th and 16th-century writers compiled by Garcia de Resende. The article continues by examining uses of the Orphic katabasis in the works of both renowned and lesser known authors of the 16th century Portuguese Renaissance, including Diogo Brandao, Diogo Bernardes, and Francisco de Sa de Miranda, and culminates with the magisterial interpretation of the theme by Luis Vaz de Camoes, author of the Lusiads .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".