MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4280578307 · doi:10.33137/rr.v44i4.38641

Two Letters of Marsilio Ficino and Their Translations in Humanistic Bohemia

2022· article· en· W4280578307 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tomáš Nejeschleba

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCzechHumanismVernacularContext (archaeology)ClassicsPopularityLiteratureArtThe RenaissancePhilosophyHistoryArt historyTheologyLawArchaeologyLinguisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two of Marsilio Ficino’s letters among his correspondence—the letter De officiis and the letter Veritas de institutione principis—enjoyed heightened popularity in the sixteenth century. One of the first translations of Ficino into the vernacular is a translation of these two letters into Czech, printed in Prague around the year 1500. Czech humanist Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení (ca. 1460–1514) seems to be a plausible candidate for the authorship. The second translation into Czech was published in 1520 by Oldřich Velenský of Mnichov (1495–1531). This article examines the Czech humanistic translations of Ficino’s letters and places them into the context of the Czech humanistic movement at the begin­ning of the sixteenth century, which emphasized moral topics from Italian Renaissance Platonism. It argues that these letters from Ficino supported the moral claims of Czech pre-Reformation and Reformation thought at the beginning of the sixteenth century.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and Reformation→Same topicReformation and Early Modern Christianity→French-language works237,207→