Intelligence, Creativity and Fantasy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Political theorists, theologians, jurists, men of letters, spoke during the early modern Era about uses and abuses of authority. Offences, vices and crimes of rulers or ruling elites are subject to consideration, by revisiting, in texts and images, the conduct of the political body and the repercussions in the social body, which tolerates them or cooperates with them. The construction shows itself as particularly creative, along with written works which are the inheritance and update of interpretations on the foundations and mechanisms of power, the emblematic with its symbols and enigmatic messages that also cover those subjects. It is, hereby, covered a fertile field of creativity and fantasy, inspired by ancient and modern sources, which combines inscriptio with pictura and with subscriptio, in a dialectical and intelligent articulation, challenging the reader to seek the senses of the enigma. We are faced with a literature largely spread during the Renaissance, which evolves through successive editions and translations, revisiting texts in prose or verse and recreating engravings according to the geographical and epochal vicissitudes. From Alciato to Ripa, imagery manifests a unique intelligence game.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".