MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893297390 · doi:10.4000/variants.964

Prolegomena to the New Edition of Francesco da Buti’s Commentary on Dante’s Commedia. Purgatorio

2019· article· en· W2893297390 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Claudia Tardelli

Bibliographic record

VenueVariants · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConnaught FundScuola Normale SuperioreUniversity of Notre Dame
KeywordsExtant taxonArgument (complex analysis)PhilosophyLiteratureEpistemologyArt historyHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I discuss the relationships between the extant manuscript tradition of Francesco da Buti’s commentary on Dante’s Purgatorio. My argument shows that the constitutio textus cannot be arrived at in a mechanical way, owing to the numerous contaminations and interpolations. I thus offer some general methodological reflections on how to critically edit a long prose text whose MSS tradition is densely contaminated. With this in mind I make the case that the most appropriate way to approach the making of the edition is to base the text on a single authoritative manuscript.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVariantsSame topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207