L’Inquiétante tradition de La Strega de Lasca. Variantes d’auteur ou réécriture éditoriale ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1976 edition of Anton Francesco Grazzini’s La Strega, the author of this article found reason to suspect the textual differences between the Magl. VII 1385 autograph version and the 1582 editions published by the Giunti of Venise in 12° and in 8°. M. Durante has since sought to rehabilitate these differences as corrections that Grazzini would have entered himself. This article relies on a new comparison between these three sources in order to address the question in a new light from the perspective of Grazzini’s intention, in the mid 1570’s, of having his works published. The analysis of both editions shows that from a manuscript which, according to M. Plaisance, did not significantly differ from the autograph manuscript Grazzini had approved shortly before the edition, the comedy was in fact censured in Venice, as well as rewritten and adapted for a non-Florentine audience by a redactor. This latter had absolutely no sense of theatrical space, he shortened many lines and was obsessed with filtering out the repetitions. One should then carefully distinguish between editorial variants and author’s corrections.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".