Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that French poet Joachim Du Bellay’s interest in the Dido figure and his unusual ventriloquizing of female characters are connected to his practice of cultivating female patrons. Du Bellay’s occasional poems, long ignored by scholars, suggest the impact that these patrons had on Du Bellay’s career. Although his writing for women is inconsistent with recommendations made in the Deffence et illustration de la langue francoyse, Du Bellay’s work for female patrons nonetheless allowed him to fulfill many of his early poetic ambitions. Cet article avance que l’intérêt du poète français Joachim Du Bellay pour le personage de Didon ainsi que l’inhabituelle ventriloquie de ses personnages féminins sont liés à sa recherche de mécènes féminins. Les poèmes de circonstance de Du Bellay, longtemps ignorés par la recherche, suggèrent que ses mécènes ont eu un impact sur sa carrière. Bien que son écriture pour des femmes soit en contradiction avec les recommandations contenues dans sa Deffence et illustration de la langue francoyse, ce travail pour des clientes féminines lui a permis de concrétiser plusieurs de ses premières ambitions poétiques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".