Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agnolo di Cosimo, better known as Bronzino, was not only one of the most celebrated painters at the court of Cosimo I in Florence; he was also a dazzling poet, as Vasari reminds us in his Vite. Bronzino was the author of a Petrarchan canzoniere, as well as of burlesque poems. In his sonetti caudati, and in his paradoxical capitoli, burlesque language—characterized by its erotic puns and double meanings—interacts with the pictorial field in a strikingly original way. This interaction hinges on Bronzino’s employment of pictorial discourse: from simple, well-known burlesque symbols and metaphors—the paint brush, colours, bells, or the shapes of mosquitoes, carrots, and cheese—to the subtler use of burlesque topoi to face more serious and complex aesthetic issues.
 Agnolo Di Cosimo, plus connu sous le nom de Bronzino, fut non seulement l’un des peintres les plus célébrés à la cour de Côme Ier de Florence, mais aussi un poète éblouissant, comme le rappelle Vasari dans ses Vies. Bronzino est l’auteur d’un chansonnier pétrarquiste, ainsi que de poésie burlesque. Dans ses « sonetti caudati », et dans ses paradoxaux « capitoli », le langage burlesque — caractérisé par des jeux de mots érotiques et des jeux de doubles ententes — interagit avec la dimension picturale de manière remarquablement originale. Cette interaction repose sur l’emploi que fait Bronzino du discours pictural, depuis les symboles et les métaphores les plus simples et fréquents du vocabulaire burlesque — tels que les pinceaux, les couleurs, les cloches, les dessins de moustiques, carottes ou fromages — jusqu’au travail, plus subtil, de topoi burlesques, lequel engage des enjeux esthétiques plus sérieux et complexes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".