Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines descriptions of the wedding ceremony of Habsburg Archduchess Maria Amalia and Duke Ferdinand of Parma in 1769 and specifically analyzes the decision-making behind her marriage and the symbolism replete in her wedding ceremony. While scholarship on this Habsburg archduchess is extremely scarce and predominantly focuses on her later life as a ruling duchess in Parma, this article sheds light on an important moment in her life and one that had widespread political implications. Situating the marriage in the historical and political context of the eighteenth century, this article contends that Maria Amalia and Ferdinand’s alliance was made by Habsburgs as a part of mid-eighteenth-century “Diplomatic Revolution,” which aimed at repairing the relationship with Bourbons after the War of Austrian Succession. Hosted in the Duchy of Parma, a region which had been ceded to Bourbons from the Habsburgs in 1748, the wedding ceremony was marked by the high-profile and laudatory celebrations of the Bourbons, which contrasted with the humble and censored presence of the Habsburgs. This contrast reflected the larger political situation: Defeated by Bourbons in the War of Austrian Succession, Habsburgs’ prestige had plummeted dramatically since the mid-eighteenth century. They were not allowed to present themselves politically in their former territory. Hence what welcomed the Habsburg bride in Parma was a ceremony with strong militaristic features and full of Bourbon propaganda.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".