Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been much interest in Lucretius and his work’s reception in the Renaissance. Stephen Greenblatt (2011) has interpreted Lucretius’s poem as the key to the origins of modernity and contemporary atheism. Alison Brown (2010) has uncovered Lucretian arguments and images in the thought of several Renaissance intellectuals, including Niccolò Machiavelli. Valentina Prosperi (2004) has examined Lucretius’s use of poetry as a medium of philosophical thought and the debate over poetry’s role in disseminating heretical ideas in the Counter Reformation. More abstractly, Gerard Passanante (2011) has focused on the implications and consequences of atomist ideas for poetry and scientific thought in the early modern period. Lucretius’s poem, On the Nature of Things (54 b.c.e.), is a lengthy, eloquent exposition of Epicurean beliefs about the natural world. It advocates materialism and as such leaves no room for a divine soul or afterlife. The poem was famous in antiquity. Both Virgil and Cicero admired Lucretius’s verse. But the poem and any serious account of ancient Epicureanism was essentially lost until Poggio Bracciolini discovered a complete manuscript of the poem in a monastery in 1417. This one manuscript was the sole source for the fifty-four surviving manuscripts and thirty print editions of the poem from the period between 1417 and 1600. Ada Palmer’s original approach to the subject focuses on these early manuscripts and print editions and the annotations, marginalia, and underlining that Renaissance readers left on their copies of Lucretius’s poem. Her reading is broad and exhaustive, and the book includes a detailed chart of the different kinds of annotations that she found in the manuscripts that she studied, three appendices that list all known manuscripts and printed editions for the period, and a detailed list of the “capitula,” the subheadings that were added to the poem later and maintained in the Renaissance to guide the reader.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.020 |
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".