Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé La traduction que donne Michel d’Amboise de la cinquième églogue de l’Adulescentia de Baptista Spagnoli, dit le Mantouan, témoigne de l’effort du poète français pour livrer aux lecteurs de la langue vernaculaire une version qui reflète fidèlement l’esprit du poème latin tout en l’accommodant à l’univers des habitants de France et de Paris. Le présent article examine trois types d’amplification pratiqués par l’auteur de la version française publiée dès 1531. Parmi ceux-ci, une longue digression fait apparaître, dans une langue richement détaillée et vivace, le portrait dynamique de la vie contemporaine dans les rues de Paris. Loin d’offrir aux lecteurs une simple version ad verbum du poème latin originel, le traducteur de l’Adulescentia propose une composition largement amplifiée, qui transmet fidèlement la matière de fond tout en l’éclaircissant en maint lieu afin de faciliter la compréhension de la poésie raffinée de l’humaniste de Mantoue. Abstract Michel d’Amboise’s translation of the fifth eclogue from Baptista Spagnoli Mantuanus’ Adulescentia clearly reflects the author’s attempts to provide his French-language readers a version which faithfully preserves the spirit of the Latin poem, while subtly accommodating its material to the worldview of the inhabitants of France, and particularly of Paris. The present article examines three types of amplification practiced by the author of the French version published as early as 1531. Amongst these, a long digression brings forth, in richly detailed and lively language, a detailed portrait of contemporary life in the streets of Paris. Far from offering to readers a simple ad verbum rendering of the original Latin poem, the translator of the Adulescentia proposes a composition with significant amplifications, one which conveys the poem’s fundamental material while elucidating it in several places in order to facilitate the reader’s understanding of the Mantuan humanist’s refined poetry.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".