Petrarca. Das Schweigen der Veritas und die Worte des Dichters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
artistic images should not always be interpreted at face value.Comanini s intelligent defense of Michelangelo, despite his own religious position, suggests how little sup- port many of the Council of Trent's strictures may have had.By inserting his defence into the mouths of his only semi-fictional characters, Comanini barely veils his own opinions concerning the vital issue of religious images and decorum.In order to assess the impact of Comanini's treatise, including his defence of Michelangelo, it would be important to know how widely read // Pigino was and by whom.This new edition unfortunately lacks any information on the history of the book itself It would also be helpful to know more about the specific environ- ment that inspired the academic discussions in this dialogue in order to more fiiUy understand the intellectual debates in their original context.The ways of thinking and the points of view expressed in // Pigino evidently reflect discussions on art held in Milan and perhaps also, given the involvement of Tasso, in Ferrara in the decades leading up to 1600.And yet, how widespread were such modes of thought?Caravaggio was in Milan at this time apprenticing to become a painter.The impact of this academic ambient on Caravaggio's way of thinking about painting was apparently negligible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.013 |
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".