Rocco Rubini. Posterity: Inventing Tradition from Petrarch to Gramsci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his 2014 work, The Other Renaissance: Italian Humanism between Hegel and Heidegger, Rocco Rubini reassessed Italian thought by examining the twentiethcentury debate about Renaissance humanism.While other national philosophical cultures questioned its emphasis on the individual, Italian thinkers defended its value and, in doing so, developed their ideas through an examination of their own intellectual origins.Rubini's meticulously researched study characterized Italian thought as a rejection of the investigation of ahistorical first principles-as was done in France, for example-in favour of an active and intentional engagement with the intellectual tradition.He concluded The Other Renaissance by suggesting that this characteristic of Italian thought extends beyond the twentieth century.In his new work, Posterity: Inventing Tradition from Petrarch to Gramsci, he gives content to this claim.In five interwoven chapters, Rubini analyzes five different authors: Petrarch, Francesco De Sanctis, Carlo Goldoni, Giambattista Vico, and finally Antonio Gramsci, specifically in relation to Benedetto Croce.His interpretative approach is based on a rich conception of how each thinker addressed the entire temporal horizon of the intellectual tradition.Drawing heavily on autobiographies and letters, Rubini shows how Italian authors reassessed the origins of humanism in the past, engaged in conversation with contemporaries in the present, and deliberately wrote to influence audiences in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".