Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of Ovid, one of the key canonical authors in Latin literature, on post-classical literature, art, and culture is perhaps even more extensive than that of Virgil. Central to the importance of his reception is his long hexameter poem the Metamorphoses, an encyclopedia of mythological narratives, and which has been described as “the painters’ bible” for the Renaissance. The wide variety of Ovid’s other works fed other streams of Renaissance literature. His amatory works invigorate the tradition of Petrarchan love poetry, including the Shakespearean sonnet. The Heroides, fictional letters from mythological characters, are the starting point for a Renaissance tradition of fictional epistles, both secular and sacred. The exilic poetry informs Renaissance inflections of the idea and experience of exile. The poem on the Roman religious calendar, the Fasti, resonates with the Renaissance interest in antiquarianism, and prompts poetry on the Christian calendar. The explosion of literary-critical interest in Ovid in classical studies since the mid-twentieth century has led to a fresh interest in the post-antique reception of Ovid, increasing awareness of his centrality for Renaissance cultural and artistic awareness.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".