<i>Making a Play for God: The</i> Sacre Rappresentazioni <i>of Renaissance Florence</i> . By Nerida Newbigin <i>Making a Play for God: The</i> Sacre Rappresentazioni <i>of Renaissance Florence</i> . By NewbiginNerida. (Centre for Renaissance and Reformation Studies. Essays and Studies, 48.) Toronto: Centre for Renaissance and Reformation Studies.2021. 2 vols. (1039 pp.) + ill. $89.90. <scp>isbn</scp> 978 0 7727 2501 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These two volumes are a summing up of fifty years of personal research, which has seen enormous changes, not just in the nature of bibliographical resources, but also in the technologies available to scholars. It is not primarily a bibliography, since this would duplicate the achievement of Alfredo Cioni in 1961; on the other hand, despite having a wider mandate, the author keeps a weather eye to bibliographical issues and anyone seeking to come to terms with a difficult and complex publishing genre will find here an excellent starting point. The Italian equivalent of the English cycles of mystery plays, the sacre rappresentazioni had their centre in Florence, where they were produced on a large scale by the city’s confraternities. Acted in churches with elaborate scenery, but also outdoors, they were popular entertainment, albeit with a moral purpose; in more recent times the texts have proved a gold-mine for historians...
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.006 |
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".