MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391838861 · doi:10.33137/rr.v46i3.42657

The Paradox of Shape: On the Representation of Women in the Sixteenth Century

2024· article· en· W4391838861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lara Michelacci

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)PoliticsThe RenaissanceSalientPower (physics)Gender studiesHistorySociologyPolitical scienceLawArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the third part of his Dialogus de viris et foeminis aetate nostra florentibus, Paolo Giovio lists over one hundred illustrious women of his time and paints an unusual picture of Italian society. The catalogue is not a review of the virtues or superiority of women but rather an account of the political use of female representations. Women are associated with the political status of a city, and all references to the physicality of women illustrate the paradox of politics itself. The female body is used as a test case to examine the exercise of power and to demonstrate the reasons for different political strategies in different courts before the dramatic Sack of Rome in 1527. Through an analysis of the Dialogus and comparison with other contemporary treatises on female figures, this article highlights the political use of the female shape, described and paradoxically modified, according to government strategy. A salient example is the ambiguous representation of Vittoria Colonna, seen by Paolo Giovio as the model for women in the Renaissance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.050
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207