Sorciers et philosophes : la duplicité des Gitans dans le théâtre italien de la Renaissance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article entend analyser la description qui est faite des Gitans dans le théâtre italien de la Renaissance. En représentant les Gitans, les dramaturges dévoilent — consciemment ou inconsciemment — dans leurs pièces les attitudes et les préjugés de l’époque à leur égard. Ils exposent aussi leurs propres insécurités : les Gitans représentés sont incapables d’interagir honnêtement avec les populations natives, alors que, pour leur part, les Italiens semblent eux aussi incapables d’assimiler la diversité des Gitans. À l’époque, on ne peut pas accepter la violation de certains tabous anthropologiques concernant le sédentarisme, le travail et l’homogénéité ethnique, ce que les Gitans semblent faire. Ainsi, ce peuple devient le symbole de tous les vagabonds qui, en raison de leur vie itinérante, sont perçus comme des éléments dangereux et menaçant la stabilité sociale, politique et religieuse des populations locales.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".