Troubling Doubling, Exceptional <i>Oeconomia</i>, and Compensation in <i>Gl’Ingannati</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies of Gl’Ingannati have offered keen insights into its ground-breaking take on the intersection of gender confusion and erotic attraction, often locating the play’s importance in its cross-dressing heroine, Lelia. Yet this research leaves room for considerations of the whole context of the performance event, especially in relation to Il Sacrificio, a performance presented earlier by the Accademici degli Intronati, and how specific moments were performed on stage. This article suggests that, as salient and significant an innovation as Lelia is, the Intronati’s performance of Gl’Ingannati is even more conspicuous as a negotiation of anxieties arising from a troublesome combination of oeconomia and eros in performance. Reading the many aspects of the play in which non-normative gender and eros intersect with neoclassical comic theory and practice reveals anxiety about the implications of these intersections, in turn uncovering moments clearly created to compensate for those implications. Three means of compensation are legible in the play: the complicated depiction of the pedant, Messer Piero, as a sodomite; the repeated articulation of a fear that any male, young or old, could express sodomitical desire; and numerous graphic descriptions of virile heteroeroticism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".