The Romance Epics of Boiardo, Ariosto and Tasso: From Public Duty to Private Place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
of the Arundel Harington manuscript, the Liber Lilliati, and the Dalhousie manuscripts.North's final chapter, on women's authorship, shows convincingly that, pace Virginia Woolf, Anon was not usually a woman.She presents some very fruitful readings of anonymous verse that demonstrate the social predicament of early modern women writers.She suggests, uncontroversially, that authentic women's authorship may not be marked by gender at all.What is missing here is the examination of the opus of a recently identified woman author, perhaps Hester Pulter, who does not always choose an explicitly feminised voice in which to speak.This might provide some markers for woman's authorship which are not to be found in anonymous poetry in which, as Marcy North states, it is impossible to judge the gender of the writer.In the end, establishing the identity of Anon, and therefore reducing the amount of suggestive and mysterious material she has to work with, is not in Marcy North's interest.It is, however, a paradox that a meaningful study of anonymity has to deal with its opposite-identification.This tension is found throughout this study, but it is a fruitful tension that produces many important insights into the nature of authorship in the early modern period, as well as some crucial frameworks for the reading of individual texts.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".