Per una codicologia dei volgarizzamenti
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstracts: Il presente contributo si prefigge, nella prima parte, di indagare, mediante un approccio codicologico e paleografico, la vasta tradizione manoscritta in volgare dei trattati morali del giudice Albertano da Brescia, rilevando le analogie e le differenze delle forme librarie a seconda del contesto storico e culturale di appartenenza; nella seconda parte, invece, si concentra nello specifico su due singoli casi (ovvero, il Pluteo 89 sup.64 della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze e il II.III.272 della Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze), grazie ai quali è possibile ricostruire le figure di coloro che trascrissero, possedettero e annotarono tali testimonianze.This essay firstly analyzes, from a codicological and paleographical perspective, the rich manuscript tradition of the moral treatises written by the judge Albertano da Brescia, with particular focus on the analogies and differences of the books / manuscripts in view of their cultural and historical background.Secondly, it discusses two specific examples (Pluteo 89 sup.64, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, and II.III.272, Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence) which help us understand about the background of those who copied, owned, and commented on such witnesses.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 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 it