MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310723171 · doi:10.33137/q.i..v42i2.39690

“The Devils Sang Matins So Properly:” Francis Xavier’s Close Encounters with Demons in Daniello Bartoli’s Asia (1653)

2022· article· en· W4310723171 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elisa Frei, Laura Madella

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaderni d italianistica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaroqueArtNarrativeOrder (exchange)Art historyRepresentation (politics)HEROAudience measurementHumanitiesLiteratureHistoryPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Daniello Bartoli (1608–85) was commissioned to write the “official” history of the Society of Jesus a century after its foundation. Later called by Leopardi “the Dante of baroque prose,” Bartoli offered a powerful representation of the overseas policies of his order, as well as an appealing overview of the remote lands its members visited for the first time. The main character and hero of Bartoli’s treatise Asia (1653) is Francis Xavier (1506–52), the “Apostle of the Indies.” This paper focuses on Xavier’s “strange encounters” with the “Indian otherness,” recounted by Bartoli as a confrontation with the “spiritual otherness.” Our essay examines several episodes of supernatural events in which Bartoli indulged in a dramatic narrative. With his colorful language, did Bartoli want to encourage vocations to the order, fellow Jesuits to travel to Asia, to gain financial and political support, or all of them? These episodes will be analyzed from a historical point of view (how Bartoli used his sources) and in a pedagogic perspective (which message he wanted to spread and to which readership).

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 venueQuaderni d italianisticaSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207