Bibliographic record
Abstract
D'un novénaire obsessif chez DanteIl faut se remémorer l'argument de la Vita nuova.Le jeune poète Dante Alighieri, récemment affligé par la mort de sa bien-aimée Béatrice, entreprend de grouper en recueil les pièces les plus importantes de sa production poétique.Comme l'avaient fait avant lui les troubadours occitans, ses modèles en poésie, il se cherche une justifi cation d'allure autobiographique, à la manière d'un pont jeté entre ses poèmes et sa vie même.C'est ce que les troubadours appelaient une razo, sorte de commentaire personnalisé de leur production poétique.Dès le début de la Vita nuova, Dante affiche fièrement le principe unificateur qu'il a trouvé : c'est le chiffre neuf, dans lequel il voit l'équivalent symbolique de sa dame et inspiratrice.Le titre même de son livre, dit-il, lui est apparu sous la forme d'une inscription écrite en rouge au début du Livre de sa mémoire : «incipit vita nova».On peut déjà y lire, sous le mot latin nova (= neuve), par la vertu d'un jeu de mots translinguistique, l'italien nove (= neuf)1. 1
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".