La politica antiottomana dei Gonzaga tra spirito di crociata e interessi dinastici: XVI-XVII secolo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For decades there has been a continuous complaint on the lack of an authentic interest and of a general scientific concern regarding the perseverance of the concept “crusade” in modern centuries; in recent years, however, much has been published, although the prevailing interpretation has been explaining the persistence of anti-ottoman military expeditions not as a continuation of the crusade spirit, but merely as an expression of sheer realpolitik or of dynastic interests. Truth be told, without denying the good reasons that lie behind this interpretation, it is the actual inquiry of events and of people that took part in the Gonzaga’s expeditions between the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, that seem to limit this assumption, especially with the key figure of Carlo Gonzaga Nevers, whose “big dream” of conquering Constantinople and of a “Catholic-Protestant crusade”, spot him together with history’s major players of the first quarter of the seventeenth century. Although this is an eminently “evenemential” work, it provides indeed a still-to-be-completed historical framework, which is not only of great historiographical exclusive interest.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".