MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152786643 · doi:10.33137/rr.v43i4.36388

“Tutti gli occhi del mondo”: Court Networks between Turin and Madrid, 1640–1700

2021· article· en· W3152786643 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Blythe Alice Raviola

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrestigeQueen (butterfly)HonourLawSpanish Civil WarPower (physics)WifeHumanitiesHistoryArtAncient historyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the court of Turin’s role in the new balance of power in Europe during the War of the Spanish Succession is well known, far less is known about the strategic function of its collateral courts, such as the court of the princes of Savoy-Carignano. Based on the correspondence of the Savoy ambassador to Madrid, Costanzo Operti (1690–95), this article focuses on these courts to demonstrate the formal and informal diplomatic interplay among male and female aristocrats from 1640 to the end of the seventeenth century. One such noblewoman, Olimpia Mancini of Carignano-Soissons, was an Italian who grew up in the French court and maintained a close relationship with Louis XIV. As the wife of a prince of the Savoy-Carignano branch, she held important positions in Turin, Paris, and Madrid. Mother to the famous prince and military warrior Eugene of Savoy, after she lost her powerful status in France, she sought to find a place in the Madrid court as lady-in-waiting to Queen Marie Louise de Orléans. Her mother-in-law, Marie de Bourbon-Soissons, played an outstanding role in maintaining the honour and prestige of the court of Carignano.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207