MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280525964 · doi:10.33137/rr.v44i4.38597

Vernacular Books and Religious Dissent in Early Modern Italy: A Study of the Ahmanson-Murphy Aldine Collection at UCLA

2022· article· en· W4280525964 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Selene Maria Vatteroni

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVernacularDissentProtestantismDissenting opinionPoetryHistoryPeriod (music)LiteratureMiddle AgesPrint cultureClassicsArtArt historyLawAncient historyPolitical scienceAestheticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sixteenth century was a period of tumultuous religious change in Europe as a whole. Italian Cinquecento culture was profoundly shaped by currents for reform and counter-reform; printed vernacular literature soon came to represent an excellent vehicle for spreading philo-Protestant religious propaganda, but it became a powerful weapon of the Roman counterpart as well. In this article, I will outline a survey of textual materials preserved in the Ahmanson-Murphy Aldine Collection at UCLA, focusing on Italian vernacular works printed between the 1540s and the 1580s. I will consider three aspects of the history of Italian print as related to the Cinquecento religious turmoil: the use of Nicodemite strategies and their effectiveness; the role of Petrarchist poetry as a privileged conduit for evangelizing dissenting doctrinal content; and the development of (para)textual apparatuses intended for instruction and guidance to the reader.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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