MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Renaissance

2011· reference-entry· en· W4245854066 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Margaret L. King

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2011
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe RenaissanceRenaissance literatureMiddle AgesPeriod (music)ClassicsPoliticsNatural (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)The artsHistoryArtLiteraturePhilosophyArt historyAestheticsLawAncient historyVisual artsPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The whole of the Oxford Bibliographies Renaissance and Reformation module has grown since its inception to embrace the period 1350–1750. That time span includes the period scholars denote as the “Renaissance” era, as well as the period loosely denoted as “early modern,” reaching beyond the original conception of the Renaissance (and for some scholars encompassing it) and into the Enlightenment era. There are no firm boundaries between the earlier “medieval” period and the subsequent, though overlapping, “Renaissance,” nor between the “Renaissance” and the “early modern.” The contours of those periods fluctuate depending on the topic, the principal figures, the region, the developments under discussion, and the nature of the community of scholars engaged in their study. This bibliography article limits itself to a narrower concept of the Renaissance: the monographs and articles that define it, debate its nature, and challenge its existence; general overviews of some aspects of the Renaissance; textbooks and sourcebooks suitable for classroom use; and journals and reference works useful for exploration of the Renaissance. The concept of the Renaissance needs its own bibliography because its nature is not self-evident. The Renaissance does not have natural boundaries, and Renaissance specialists do not agree on its chronological limits, although 1350 to 1650, or the somewhat longer period from Petrarch to Milton, is a designation with which many agree. Use of the term implies an interpretation of the nature of the Middle Ages, and the notion of a shift after 1300 from the main features of that era in the realms of culture, society, and politics. Most of those who employ the concept of the Renaissance see developments in thought and the arts as critical, but not as the sole elements in that transformation. Many medievalists have denied the existence of a Renaissance altogether, finding the roots of all its characteristic themes in the Middle Ages. Many scholars, especially of the later period (sixteenth into the eighteenth centuries), prefer the term “early modern,” which seems to some more appropriately used when discussing European expansion, gender and sexuality, and even the modern state. But the editors of this Oxford Bibliographies module and most of its contributors find the concept of the Renaissance still to be indispensable, as denoting the era when, for the last time in the history of European civilization, the legacy of the Greco-Roman past was integrated with the firmly established Judeo-Christian one, thus reestablishing, on the threshold of modernity, its dual foundation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207