David Lummus, ed., <i>The Decameron Sixth Day in Perspective.</i> Volume Six of the <i>Lectura Boccaccii</i>. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2021, 289 pp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The combination of innovation and originality that is required to edit a book on Boccaccio’s Decameron , which claims dozens of publications each year, may prove difficult. Yet, The Decameron Sixth Day in Perspective. Volume Six of the Lectura Boccaccii , edited by David Lummus, succeeds in offering new perspectives on one of the most fascinating days of Boccaccio’s collection. This volume, which presents ten essays by renowned Boccaccio scholars from a variety of backgrounds, is part of a long-term project by the University of Toronto Press that includes a 2004 edition of the first day, a 2014 book of the third day, and two 2020 volumes of the fourth and eighth days.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".