Il commento linguistico come tradizione discorsiva nella stampa periodica di metà Settecento
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La pratica del commento linguistico all’interno della stampa periodica comincia a diffondersi prevalentemente nell’Ottocento. Gli articoli di cronaca, le recensioni bibliografiche o le semplici novità, però, offrono uno spunto di riflessione linguistica già all’interno di molti periodici della metà del Settecento. In particolare, polemiche o apologie rivolte al conservatorismo dell’Accademia della Crusca, l’innovazione del lessico specialistico tramite nuove traduzioni di opere straniere e gli influssi dei francesismi nel lessico italiano, permettono ai compilatori delle varie riviste letterarie e delle gazzette di discutere, talvolta ampiamente, dei problemi linguistici dell’epoca. La ricerca quindi si propone di individuare una prima forma di commento linguistico all’interno di alcuni periodici a stampa di metà Settecento.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".