<i>Jurisprudence of the Baroque. A Census of Seventeenth Century Italian Legal Imprints</i> . By D <scp>ouglas</scp> J. O <scp>sler</scp> . <i>Jurisprudence of the Baroque. A Census of Seventeenth Century Italian Legal Imprints</i> . By OslerDouglas J.. (Studien zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte. Veröffent-lichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für europäische Rechtsgeschichte, 235–237; Bibliographica iuridica, 4–6.) Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann. 2009. 3 vols. (lv + 848; xxix + 831; xxix + 735 pp.). €169, €164, €149. <scp>isbn</scp> 978 3 465 03605 0, 978 3 465 03604 3, 978 3 465 03601 2.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excellently printed and reasonably priced given the size of the volumes, this census of Italian legal imprints compiled by a Scot living and working at the Max Planck Institut in Frankfurt transcends national boundaries. Long in the making, with extensive visits to libraries in Italy, Scotland, and other interesting places, it lists 7,730 items, divided into a main alphabetical sequence (nos. 1–5872), the sets of the Corpus iuris civilis and the Corpus iuris canonici (nos. 5873–5963), the statutes and legislation of cities or regions (nos. 5964–6284), those relating to trade and other associations (nos. 6285–6663), those relating to religious orders (nos. 6664–6839), and those produced by councils and synods (nos. 6840–7730). It is therefore an impressive and very necessary instrument for the reference shelves of any library with an interest in the history of legal publishing. The question does arise about what should be defined as ‘jurisprudence’. For instance I wonder whether the Index librorum prohibitorum, i.e. lists of banned books, really belongs herein (nos. 6852, 6854, etc.). In this case the author should not be the Council of Trent, but the Papacy, or more specifically after 1571, Congregation of the Index, while the secondary references need embellishment with a mention of the Sherbrooke edition coordinated by Jesus Martinez de Bujanda (1985–2002).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.011 |
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".