Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il saggio riconsidera l’intero contesto dei primi Canti leopardiani in rapporto alle due maggiori esperienze di traduzione di Cesarotti: le Poesie di Ossian e l’Iliade. Variamente collegata al concetto di epica antica, benché intesa in modo diverso dal punto di vista sia antropologico sia geografico, la ricezione delle due opere si pone al centro di un nodo interpretativo ed estetico particolarmente centrale nei primi anni dell’Ottocento, un nodo che dà vita a un dibattito al quale partecipa anche il giovane poeta di Recanati. Il suo intervento trova riscontri importanti sia nelle riflessioni affidate ad alcune opere teorico-filosofiche sia attraverso una rete di reminiscenze che punteggiano i versi dei primi Canti. Soprattutto in quest’ultimo caso, Leopardi mostra di attingere all’immaginario dell’epos grazie al filtro della nuova langue creata dall’abate padovano, punto di partenza anche per altre celebri traduzioni iliadiche dell’epoca, che in questo studio sono messe a confronto.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".