Bibliographic record
Abstract
Galileo, long-time hero to historians of science, also casts a giant shadow on the history of Italian prose: his published output spanned many genres, from operation manual to over-sophisticated dialogue.The draft of a play, sonnets and other poetry, and reading notes survived him unpublished.What, asks Hall, did he read, and what was the relationship between his literary reading and his scientific writing?Hall is closer to answering these questions than any preceding literary critic, though the material may well be more problematic than she admits in this book.(She has since addressed this point in her article "Galileo's Library Reconsidered" in Galilaeana, XII, 2015, 29-82).She's quite right to resist the clichés of Galileo's early hagiographies, such as that of his creepy acolyte Vincenzo Viviani, who pitted Galileo's study of nature against that of books: "He equipped himself with very few books, " Viviani wrote in his 1654 Racconto istorico della vita di Galileo, "but these were the best and the nicest; he praised good writings on philosophy and geometry to enlighten and arouse the mind to similar or higher speculations, but rightly said that the principal portals via which one should enter the rich treasury of natural philosophy were observations and experiments" (translation mine).Over a century ago, the great Galileo editor Antonio Favaro published his interpretative reconstruction of Galileo's library, consisting of more than five hundred titles.Favaro depended on several sources: centrally, two imprecise book inventories from Galileo's heirs, drawn up decades after his death, supplemented by Galileo's surviving books (sometimes embellished with his marginalia), plus titles mentioned in his correspondence and printed works.Hall has now revisited these documents and uses them as the door to enter Galileo's study.Before following Favaro, though, it's worth considering the problems posed by these sources: a 1641 inventory of Galileo's own possessions mentions only "forty pieces of books." Perhaps he gave away his library when he went blind; or perhaps Galileo's relatives merged their inheritance with their own collections.Indeed, Favaro's lists are perhaps actually a diversion from the harder question of Galileo's reading; he had, after all, access to one of the best
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".