Bibliographic record
Abstract
A hundred and fifty years after 1848, Italy’s public memory of the events of what used to be called ‘the year of miracles’ is dominated by a mixture of indifference and silence. That ‘long revolution’brought Italy to abandon neo-Guelph organicism and the theocratic federalist projects of 1846, to adopt modern European liberalism’s ideas and projects, to contribute to the ‘great European movement’ and to radically redesign the boundaries of the possible and the necessary. However, today the lack of interest in these events is so profound as to constitute a collective suppression. Italy’s National Library catalogue lists no new monograph on the subject since 1996, and the only valuable study published in the 1990s is Enrica Ciommo’s 1993 book on the ‘national question’ in the South. 1 If we go further back we find little more than an intelligent but circumscribed research on the spreading of the Roman republic — its ideas, events, actors and institutional and political innovations — in the nearby countryside. 2 Recent historiographical attention to the Risorgimento, and to its configurations as memory and myth, 3 does not touch upon 1848, about which we still do not have a good inclusive survey. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".