MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Academies

2019· reference-entry· en· W4253854477 on OpenAlex
Simone Testa

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2019
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmblemHumanismPoliticsPeriod (music)RhetoricSpace (punctuation)Spare timeSociologyHistoryHumanitiesMedia studiesLawArtVisual artsPolitical scienceAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academies were one of the most influential social and cultural phenomena of the early modern period. The fashion of creating academies started in Italy in the early 15th century and spread to the rest of Europe. While it initially referred to a place, “Academia” or “Accademia” came to indicate many kinds of formal or informal groups, the gathering of such groups, or the activities they promoted. “Accademia” as a form of spontaneous association of learned individuals, separated from universities or from religious groups, was used by circles of humanists in early Quattrocento Tuscany, and spread to the rest of the Italian peninsula, to the point that between 1430 and 1700, there were hundreds of academies, in big cities as well as in small centers. They engaged in all sorts of disciplines, such as history, geography, poetry, music, theater, rhetoric, politics, diplomacy, medicine, mathematics, physics, engineering, etc., and generally promoted knowledge as a collaborative effort. “Accademia” defined a social space where a group of people gathered to share their spare time, information, and knowledge, initially without necessarily drafting membership rules or statutes. As they constituted forms of learned sociability, academies varied greatly through space and time, and interests, and (at least in Italy) they tended to be short-lived. Many academies in Italy acquired playful names, such as Oziosi (The Idle Ones), Intrepidi (The Intrepid Ones), Abbandonati (The Abandoned Ones), and Gelati (The Frozen Ones), and they often adopted an emblem, or impresa; that is, a picture with a motto. Several academies were the creation of young men in their late teens and early twenties. Many required their members to adopt playful names related to the general name of the academy and its impresa. Many selected a patron saint and asked for the protection of a living patron, generally a member of the clergy or the nobility. Different from other associations, such as confraternities or guilds, many academies facilitated the diffusion of their activities in the form of networked publications. Academies proudly declared on their publications, either in manuscript or in print, the name of the academy and the names of academicians. In this way, academies facilitated the importance of belonging across intellectual circles, which made them more famous than other kinds of groups. By the end of the 16th century, it was impossible for any learned man living on the Italian peninsula to ignore the social space of the “accademia.” Later on, the model of Italian academies influenced the creation of similar groups in other European countries, such as France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and England. In general, however, transalpine academies tended to be more long-lasting, more structured, dependent on political power, and keener to produce collaborative research that met with the celebration of the utility of knowledge promoted by the cultural goals of the late 17th and 18th centuries. In general, the representation of Italian academies through the centuries met both good and bad judgments. Lately, the phenomenon is being reevaluated in light of current forms of social networks. It is the intention of this contribution to include all gatherings that gave themselves the name of “academy,” whether or not they drafted rules and regulations, published books, used the vernacular Italian language in their publications, or gave themselves and their members humorous names.

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.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.292 · 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