MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548321423 · doi:10.33137/q.i..v33i2.19416

Anti-Petrarchism in the <i>Decameron</i>’s <i>Proem</i> and <i>Introduction</i>

2013· article· en· W2548321423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph Grossi

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaderni d italianistica · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetrySonnetArtCriticismLiteraturePersonaPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similarities of purpose between the Proem of the Decameron and the opening sonnet of the Rerum vulgarium fragmenta have been noticed by several scholars. Students of Boccaccio and Petrarch are also becoming increasingly aware that the former was willing to criticize his friend, as he did when Petrarch chose to accept Visconti patronage in Milan, the great enemy of Florence.The Proem of the Decameron, however, has not hitherto elicited comment as a text where such friendly criticism, at least of Petrarch’s poetic persona in the RVF, might be found. The present essay suggests that Boccaccio’s famous address in the Proem to fearful, lovesick and housebound women pertains as much to that Petrarcan persona as it does to those vaghe donne. Although it refers to and engages with the important debate on Boccaccio’s attitudes towards real women, the essay explores the possibility that the Decameron’s Proem slyly hints (in a way that is reinforced by the story collection’s Introduction) that the Canzoniere reveals a male poet who is himself “unmanned” by his excessive lovesickness and pursuit of solitude.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaderni d italianisticaSame topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207