MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391312361 · doi:10.33137/rr.v42i1.32868

Acciarino, Damiano. Lettere sulle grottesche (1580–1581)

2019· article· en· W4391312361 on OpenAlex
Marco Piana

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The word "grotesque"-which is now part of our everyday languageoriginated in the Italian Renaissance.The term was originally a noun defining an extravagant style of decorative art found in ancient Roman ruins, unearthed in the fifteenth century and commonly called grotte (caves) by the populace.Among these "caves" we find the rooms and corridors of Emperor Nero's Domus Aurea, the unfinished palace complex started after the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, which had become overgrown and buried over the ages.Inside these newly discovered ruins, artists like Raffaello, Pinturicchio, and Signorelli found a new source of inspiration: a series of mysterious images of monstrosities, sensual mythologies, alchemical symbols, and Egyptian hieroglyphs.Imbued with such a striking form of alterity, these artists brought to the sources a new style of painting, reminiscent of antiquity and yet very well anchored in early modern iconography.Since the outstanding work done by Paola Barocchi in compiling a corpus of sixteenth-century Italian texts on the visual arts, the Renaissance debate on the paintings known as grotesques has become increasingly important in the contemporary academic inquiry.This is due mostly to the multiplicity of academic aspects that are involved in it.Such paintings, as Dorothea Scholl well underlines in her preface, were the object of controversies that concerned not only the context of aesthetics and the visual arts, but also the domains of poetry, theology, and natural philosophy.The debate on the grotesque, moreover, became quickly involved with the major debate on images generated by the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation.Just like other artistic genres in contact with non-Christian antiquity, the grotesques progressively became the symbols of a culture of hybridity and decadence that needed to be purged from the Christian world.Acciarino's work on this subject is quite remarkable, as it unveils crucial aspects of the post-Tridentine development of such a debate.Acciarino's selection of letters in the vernacular from the years 1580 to 1581 reveals the

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it