Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giovanni Boccaccio (b. 1313–d. 1375), along with the two other great Florentine writers, Dante Alighieri and Francesco Petrarch, is one of the Three Crowns of Italian literature. His vast body of poetic and prose works represents a great variety of classical and medieval literary genres. Boccaccio was acutely aware of his position as mediator between different cultures—classical and medieval; Italian, French, and Latin; and Christian and pagan—and thus he stands as an important figure in the development of a European humanist literary culture that defines the Renaissance and beyond. Although his Latin encyclopedic works were his most important and influential works for centuries, modern audiences, both scholarly and otherwise, have made the Decameron Boccaccio’s most read text. Italian, German, and French scholars made the first critical editions of Boccaccio in the late 19th century. Italian scholars, primarily Vittore Branca but also others, renewed efforts to create authoritative critical editions in the late 20th century. Italian criticism of Boccaccio remains mostly philological, with important exceptions. North American scholars of Boccaccio have focused on the Decameron. The late 20th century saw great interest in Boccaccio’s early vernacular works, primarily in North America. American critics have read Boccaccio in light of new critical categories, particularly feminism and Mediterranean studies, although more-recent critical attention has shifted back to Boccaccio’s Latin texts in order to illuminate his intellectual contributions to the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. The 700th centenary of his birth in 2013 saw a number of publications in which a range of scholars considered Boccaccio’s influence across genre and period. Besides his writings, Boccaccio was an important figure in the creation of an Italian literary tradition, promoting the poetic importance both of Dante and Petrarch.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.032 |
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".