Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stati Uniti 1880-1943, Claudio Gorlier observes: "You will find it hard to believe, but there exists a literary culture in Italian by Italian emigrants to the United States, dating back to the first generation."(7)?This sense of astonishment concerning the existence of a literature in Italian by the early Italian emigrants to the New World appears to support the comments by Francesco Durante, the volume's editor, who states in his introduction that Italian critics and scholars have long neglected, or ignored, the patrimony of Italian American culture as well as the complexity and variety of the Italian American question.(4).Durante is quick to point out that today the situation regarding studies on emigration has changed rather dramatically.In fact, only in the last few years has there occurred a radical change in Italy's place on the stage of international migration.In his review of recent works on Italian Americans, Goffredo Fofi writes: "It is only recently that Italian Americans have become fashionable.They used to be of interest only when one of them was famous, either in films, politics, or sports, and only in those sports like baseball and boxing in which the rise to the top was particularly fierce."(28)3 Fofi adds that these Italian immigrants were once viewed from a distance with a mixture of smugness and amazement, because to "real" Italians, they did not appear to be one of them, but rather a strange hybrid that had to do only with the most poor, the most wayward, and the most ignorant: the Southerners and peasants (28).This essay attempts to offer a brief
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".