English Evangelicals and Tudor Obedience, c.1527–1570
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of Giulia in the Spanish court of Naples was not as invisible and discreet as her lifestyle might suggest.When Charles V formally entered the city in December 1535 after the battle of Tunis, Ercole Gonzaga asked her to greet Charles on behalf of her entire family.Nevertheless, she did not get along well with Pedro of Toledo, the viceroy of Naples, primarily on account of her connections with Maria d'Avalos of Aragon, marchioness del Vasto, whom Giulia affectionately nicknamed "the Dragon" (la Draga).When the Inquisition raised a repressive wave in Naples between 1552 and 1553, Giulia understood immediately with great political acuteness that the fury against her was stoked by the vice-royal court (172-73).Dying before the Valdesian circle experienced the most intransigent side of the Inquisition, Giulia avoided being investigated and sentenced.Her friend Carnesecchi was not as fortunate.Giulia believed that any accusation could be defended with the help of her aristocratic connections, but she was merely deluding herself.Her naïveté shows in her use of very simple coded language in her correspondence and in the fact that she did not destroy Carnesecchi's letters.In 1567, only one year after her death, the Inquisition seized her letters and used them to prove Carnesecchi's guilt.This new volume on Giulia Gonzaga examines the networks she created around herself; in so doing, it sheds new light on a chapter of Italian history when great intellectual and religious fervour was about to fall victim to the most severe orthodoxy.johnny l. bertolio
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".