Bibliographic record
Abstract
On closer inspection, the terms that distinguish this title appear less pertinent to a literary category than to doctrinal concepts or religious history. However, as semantic and conceptual fields of inquiry, their presence has important repercussions for Michelangelo’s poetic development (and his development as an artist). It is possible to investigate this matter through observations and analyses of the poetic language of the rime. I propose that it becomes evident from reading Michelangelo’s verses that the lexical-semantic group united under the term trascendenza cannot and must not be understood as pertaining to doctrinal or religious contemplation, but rather to a broader spiritual sense that depends on neo-Platonic philosophy. The term and its related semantic field appear mainly in a series of rime on matters of love, the examination of which reveals its particular character as a spiritual component of ennobling sentiment, where the experience of love has the specific function of rapprochement with and elevation to the divine. This has already been recognised and highlighted by the first commentators on Michelangelo’s Rime, starting with Francesco Berni and continuing with Condivi, Vasari and above all Benedetto Varchi. However, other lexical, semantic and conceptual cases can be extracted from the rime of a properly religious nature. In these, the terminology changes, focusing mainly on the concepts of guilt, error and faith, variously articulated in relation to the subjects of repentance or prayer. Michelangelo’s poetic dialogue with Vittoria Colonna stands out in these rime, well studied but still lacking elucidation with respect to some of its specific implications.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".