‘Haec, quae non vidistis oculis, animis cernere potestis’ . Poggio Bracciolini contro Lorenzo Valla fra performance retorica e self-definition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), segretario apostolico e poi Cancelliere della Repubblica di Firenze, fu indiscusso protagonista del movimento umanistico italiano, distinguendosi anche come maestro d’invettiva. Nell’obiettivo comune di far rivivere l’eredità antica, anche nelle invettive gli Umanisti offrirono numerose rappresentazioni erudite, attraverso ad esempio l’agonale tentativo di aemulatio dei modelli del passato, ma anche l’ostentazione di un significativo virtuosismo retorico. Il presente contributo analizza un episodio della seconda oratio in Laurentium Vallam (c. 1452) del Bracciolini, ove il ricorso alla trattatistica retorica antica in ambito di scrittura figurativa emerge più evidente che in altri loca delle sue invettive e insieme alla riscrittura ‘artistica’ di un famoso passo ciceroniano si staglia come strumento di rappresentazione e distinzione personale per l’umanista di Terranuova.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".