The World beyond Europe in the Romance Epics of Boiardo and Ariosto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recensioni / Book Reviews / Revues des Livres -272 -sensibilities, stating that it is imperative that the diverse ways of reading a text be comprehended as positioned in a unique historical frame; the "book-object," she clarifies, is expressed and elaborated for a particular reading situation.If this book ever left me wanting, it was only because Armstrong creates a momentum so strong and captivating with her multi-century-spanning study that its concluding in the 1930s leaves readers eager to know where Boccaccio translation finds itself today.However, even to say that I was left wanting is a falsity, since Armstrong never leads readers to new territory without showing them where the rest of the journey lies.There is a reason for this somewhat-abrupt halt: Armstrong presents the jarring fact that, of the approximately 90 translated works explored in The English Boccaccio, just one is the labour of a female translator; this would be Frances Winwar's (formerly Vinciguerra) 1930 translation of the Decameron.Armstrong concludes the book with a statement not unlike a call to arms, saying that her book is merely the "first stage of this project" on Boccaccio in English translation.She declares that other scholars ought to continue this work in order to explore the translations, namely by females, made from the 1960s onwards, given that the feminine touch was "almost completely absent from the first five hundred years of [Boccaccio's] English reception history, and [its] groundbreaking work in this particularly conservative field should be addressed as a matter of priority" (400).She notes, finally, that, contrary to those who declare that the biblio-apocalypse is upon us, Boccaccio in digital formats will guarantee the survival of the "book," though she makes it clear that there is still some work to do; The English Boccaccio book provides the necessary, solid foundation for the next step of this fundamental research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".