MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522373830 · doi:10.33137/rr.v39i2.26852

Sixteenth-Century Polymaths in the Print and Publishing Business in Basel: An Intersection of Interests and Strategies (1472–1513)

2016· article· en· W2522373830 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Valentina Sebastiani, Wendell Ricketts

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingHumanitiesNegotiationArt historyArtOrder (exchange)SociologyPolitical scienceLawLiteratureBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In sixteenth-century Europe the business of printing created small intellectual communities that had the ability to manage the exigencies of the market and those of culture. In this process of continual negotiation between the interests of publishers, authors, and readers, how did men of letters lend their erudition to the service of printing? How were they able to elicit the interest of printers in publishing their works? And, above all, to what extent did their collaboration with printers impact their careers? This brief investigation analyzes the work of polymaths such as Johann Heynlin, Conrad Leontorius, Konrad Pellikan, Sebastian Brant, Jacob Wimpfeling, and Johann Reuchlin—who, acting as translators, proofreaders, and literary and typographical experts, collaborated with the Basel printer Johann Amerbach—in order to shed light on the fruitful reciprocity of printing and erudition that shaped the careers of early modern scholars and erudites. Dans l’Europe du XVIe siècle, l’imprimerie a créé de petites communautés d’intellectuels en mesure de tenir compte aussi bien des exigences culturelles que de celles du marché. À travers la continuelle négociation entre les intérêts des éditeurs, des auteurs et des lecteurs, comment ces hommes de lettre ont-ils mis leur érudition au service de l’imprimerie ? Comment arrivaient-ils à intéresser les éditeurs à leur travail ? Et surtout, dans quelle mesure leur collaboration avec ces éditeurs a-t-elle influencé leur carrière ? Cette brève enquête analyse le travail de savants polymathes tels que Johann Heynlin, Conrad Leontorius, Konrad Pellikan, Sebastian Brant, Jacob Wimpfeling et Johann Reuchlin, qui ont travaillé en tant que traducteurs, correcteurs d’épreuves, et d’experts typographes et littéraires avec l’imprimeur bâlois Johann Amerbach. Elle met ainsi en lumière la collaboration fructueuse de l’imprimerie et de l’érudition et son impact sur la carrière des intellectuels et des érudits de cette époque.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.029
Scholarly communication0.0180.010
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicRenaissance Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207