Bibliographic record
Abstract
What might a turn to Erich Auerbach and his great contemporary interpreter Jacques Rancière have to offer the study of Renaissance literature today? For nearly forty years of professional scholarship, “Renaissance” has typically meant either the inauguration of, or a premodern alternative to, a catastrophic modernity. “Renaissance” has been, in this sense, part of that regime of historicity that François Hartog terms “presentism.” Auerbach and Rancière, I suggest, offer a way out of the unending treadmill of presentism in Renaissance scholarship and beyond. Throughout Auerbach’s work, and particular in Mimesis, Renaissance meant the historical diversity that emerges when you decide human life is subject to no absolute manner of judging. Rancière picks up on this diversity and calls it “aisthesis,” the dissensus that unravels all absolute distributions of sensibility. I offer Marlowe’s “The Passionate Shepherd” as a test case for some of the possibilities Auerbach’s Renaissance might make available. The invitation of Marlowe’s poem is not simply an invitation to love; it is an invitation to the possibilities of an aesthetic life lived in history. [C.W.]
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".