MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2975430352 · doi:10.7202/1064527ar

Amours privées, amours publiques, amours publiées ; l’inscription de divers cercles publics dans quelques avatars des canzonieri pétrarquistes des années 1570–1580

2019· article· fr· W2975430352 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charlotte Triou

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PoetryReading (process)PublicsAudience measurementArtSociologyHumanitiesLiteratureHistoryLawPolitical sciencePoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes an analysis of the clues given in printed collections by their address to a limited public and by the circulation of individual poems prior to publication. We will analyze, from the point of view of reception by successive audiences, the tension between the paradigm of generic reading of the canzoniere and a published work’s inscription in a specific ethical and social context. Two very different avenues of publication are compared—involving, on the one hand, processes rooted in the context of the royal court (Jamyn and Ronsard), and on the other hand, those arising from a spouse’s mourning (Christofle du Pré and Pierre de Brach). These collections, which readapt the discursive framework of Petrarchism and extend the significance of Petrarchan motifs, permit us to discern the competition between the interpretative expectations tied to the genre of the canzoniere and those tied to addressing an appropriate readership.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and Reformation→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→