MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594873973 · doi:10.33137/rr.v39i3.27721

Aristotle and the People: Vernacular Philosophy in Renaissance Italy

2017· article· en· W2594873973 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marco Sgarbi

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVernacularThe RenaissanceArtHumanitiesMeaning (existential)Vernacular cultureHistoryLiteratureClassicsArt historyPhilosophyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The essay focuses on vernacular Aristotelianism in Renaissance Italy, which began to gain currency in the 1540s, just as the vernacular was beginning to establish itself as a language of culture and the Counter-Reformation was getting underway. With over three hundred printed and manuscript works, the statistics of this phenomenon are impressive. Even so, the vulgarization of Aristotle in the Italian Renaissance has never received the scholarly attention it deserves. The paper examines (1) the identity of the recipients of Aristotle’s vulgarizations, (2) the meaning of the process of vulgarization, and (3) the conception of knowledge that such writings brought to the culture of the Cinquecento. The purpose is to show that (1) vernacular renderings of Aristotle’s works were aimed at the “people,” including “idiots” (men lacking culture or knowledge of Latin), “simpletons,” “ignorants,” and “illiterates” as well as princes, men of letters, women, and children, (2) vulgarization was not simply a matter of disseminating, simplifying, and trivializing knowledge, and (3) vulgarization upheld the notion of widespread knowledge. L’article se concentre sur l’aristotélisme vernaculaire en Italie de la Renaissance, qui s’est grandement développé au cours des années 1540, au moment où la langue vernaculaire s’est imposée comme langue de culture alors que la Contre-Réforme débutait. Avec plus que quatre cent oeuvres imprimées ou manuscrites, les chiffres de ce phénomène sont impressionants. Malgré tout, la vulgarisation d’Aristote pendant la Renaissance italienne n’a jamais reçu l’attention savante qu’elle mérite. L’article examine 1) l’identité des destinataires des vulgarisations d’Aristote 2) le sens du processus de vulgarisation, et 3) la conception de la connaissance que représentent ces textes dans la culture de Cinquecento. L’objectif est de démontrer que les traductions vernaculaires des oeuvres d’Aristote s’adressaient au peuple, y compris les “simples” (les hommes sans culture ni connaissance du latin), les nigauds, les ignares, et les illettrés ainsi que les princes, les hommes de lettres, les femmes, et les enfants, 2) la vulgarisation n’était pas une affaire simple de dissémination,qui simplifie et fait circuler le savoir, et 3) la vulgarisation sert l’ambition d’une circulation des savoirs

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207