A History of Women's Writing in Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le curatrici di A History of Women's Writingin Italy seguono una tendenza dif- fusa ultimamente, a partire dall'ambiente accademico anglo-americano e poi ancheitaliano, di interesse per l'apporto letterario, ma anche culturale e sociale dato dalie- donne in Italia.Su questa linea si collocano, ad esempio, testi quali Italian Women Writers, Feminist Encyclopedia of Italian Uterature (entrambe curate da Rinaldina Russell e pubblicate da Greenwood Press rispettivamente nel 1994 e 1997) o il sag- gio di Marina Zancan II doppio itinerario della scrittura (Einaudi, 1998).Tuttavia rispetto ai lavori finora pubblicati, di taglio specificamente bio-bilio- grafico, o limitati ad un periodo storico ristretto, o a poche autrici rappresentative, quest'opera si distingue per ampiezza, ricchezza, e per il fatto di essere un testo storiografico completo, ispirato a principi teorici femministi.A History of Women's Writing in Italy è una storia della scrittura femminile dal Medioevo ai giorni nostri che vede la collaborazione di diciotto studiose d'italianistica europee e nord-americane.Un lavoro di queste dimensioni non era stato ancora tentato né in Italia né in altro paese di lingua inglese.Si tratta di un'opera collettiva di notevole portata, in cui le curatrici Letizia Panizza e Sharon Wood hanno compiuto un'eccellente
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".