Fables and Faith: <i>Favoleggiare</i> in the <i>Commedia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The verb favoleggiare appears twice in Dante’s Divina commedia, both times in the Paradiso. An examination of the use of this word, alongside a secondary consideration of the word favola as it is used elsewhere in the Paradiso, suggests the poet’s concern with the relationship between knowledge, particularly the shared beliefs of a community, and faith. As the pilgrim progresses on his journey through heaven, he comes to learn that the epistemology perpetuated through fables, while it may have its uses, is not enough to allow him to regain the diritta via Firmly rooted in the past, fables cannot adequately explain the sense behind human tragedy, nor do they provide all the tools necessary to acquire salvation. As the pilgrim will come to learn, we must look away from our human community to the divine, which remains unchanged and unaffected by the course of human affairs. It is this that the pilgrim must bear in mind through the suffering that awaits him on earth as he keeps his eyes on his heavenly reward. In order to do this, he must abandon his reliance on fables and accept that the cross is the only framework upon which a holy life can be based.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".