MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Girolamo Cardano

2017· reference-entry· en· W4233103098 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marialuisa Baldi

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2017
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymathEnlightenmentMAGIC (telescope)HumanismBiographyArt historyPhilosophyNatural philosophyThe RenaissanceLiteratureClassicsArtEpistemologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardano (Girolamo, Gerolamo, b. 1501–d. 1576) is an Italian polymath, one of the most prominent authors of the Renaissance. He was not only a physician, mathematician, and astrologer but also a philosopher and a curious researcher of nature, interested in all areas of human knowledge and experience. At the end of his life, he was brought to trial by the Catholic Inquisition, and all his works, except the medical ones, were condemned. Yet his writings in the philosophy of nature, especially the encyclopedic De subtilitate and De rerum varietate, were frequently read until the Enlightenment. For the general public, his name is renowned for some inventions and discoveries as the solution of cubic equations. What we call Cardan joint is named after him. His fascinating autobiography has been translated in many languages. Scholars read him as a radical thinker, crypto-Reformer critic of religions, and a forerunner of the new science still immersed in magic. A more complex image of Cardano has now been emerging, thanks to recent editions and translations of his works. Cardano sensed the crisis of the humanistic tradition in the age of the Counter-Reformation. As then, he still offers tools for understanding what is continuously transforming, and getting closer to the truth.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.010

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and Reformation→Same topicHistorical and Literary Studies→French-language works237,207→