<i>Damnatio memoriae</i>: The Rebirth of Condemnation of Memory in Renaissance Florence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, on montre que l’ancienne pratique de la damnatio memoriae, ou condamnation de la mémoire, est réapparue dans la Florence de la Renaissance. Les chercheurs associent habituellement la damnatio memoriae avec la Rome antique. Toutefois, les florentins de la Renaissance ont emprunté leur destruction de la mémoire extra-juridique au modèle antique. La damnatio memoriae florentine se concrétise en une destruction des habitations, un effacement et une altération d’images, de documents et de symboles, et même en un violent cannibalisme. On montre également que les changements de structure politique et des idées au sujet de la renommée ont donné lieu à des transformations significatives dans la façon que les florentins condamnaient la mémoire entre la fin du treizième siècle et l’époque du principat des Médicis du seizième siècle. En outre, on avance que la damnatio memoriae est non seulement une pratique dont l’étude est négligée, mais qu’elle affecte aussi l’approche méthodologique des sources, alors que la conscience de cette interaction peut modifier ou enrichir leurs interprétations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".