Italian and World Poetry in Benigni's and Cerami's <i>the Tiger and the Snow</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the published screenplay of The Tiger and the Snow (2005), the two authors, Roberto Benigni and Vincenzo Cerami, call our attention to their film's literary background by indicating the dozens of Italian and world poets they have quoted or directly drawn upon. In so doing, they close a narrow technico-philological problem, and open up for discussion a space beyond it with much broader intellectual, cultural and political implications. The article broaches a general assessment of such complex issues in the light that The Tiger and the Snow casts on them; then, focusing more closely on the litcrature-and-film question, debates just what kind of literature — specifically, what kind of poetry — seems to be most in favor with today's mainstream Italian intelligentsiia; and it closes by proposing some thoughts about the reasons why, despite embodying to perfection the prevalent literary canon just alluded to, The Tiger and the Snow has been received outside Italy with considerably less enthusiasm than the two author's previous Academy Award winner, Life is Beautiful.
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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".