Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article challenges the interpretation of the 1980s in Italy as a period in which a large section of the population and, especially, the younger generation, turned away from politics and a retreated into the private sphere after the revolutionary ebullience of the 1960s and 1970s. The discussion centres around the figure of Pier Vittorio Tondelli whose collection of short stories Altri libertini (1980) inaugurated a new understanding of the cultural role of literature, and a new relationship between authors and readers. While devoid of the ideological preoccupations that characterized the protest movement(s) of the previous decades, Tondelli’s work, it is argued, is anything but escapist and rather seeks to provide a sensitive and thoughtful account of the transformations taking place in Italian society and culture during a critical decade in which Italy, like other mature Western societies, was precipitously projected into the post-Fordist phase of contemporary capitalism. From this vantage point Tondelli’s opus demonstrate the constant and sustained engagement of its author with a disorienting new world in which the contradictions between personal and collective desires and aspirations are increasingly mobilized to fuel the “society of spectacle” Guy Debord had foreseen. It can hardly be questioned that Tondelli’s struggle raises ethical issues, but it is important to see that this ethical dimension is inherently connected with a political horizon, albeit a politics of desire that traditional Marxist approaches have some difficulty identifying as politics, let alone as revolutionary politics. In order to appreciate fully the significance of Tondelli’s cultural contribution and disentangle it from the debates that it originated, the author proposes a fresh approach. Mindful of Raymond Williams’s eminent example (Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, 1976), the analysis focuses on four keywords that can help us traverse Tondelli’s work and identify its strengths as well as some of its weaknesses. Affect, Commitment, Postmodernism, and Theory are intersecting vectors in a reassessment that through Tondelli reopens the discussion on an entire decade, and its aftermath.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".