New Modes of Materiality in the Angoysses douloureuses qui procedent d’amours (1538) by Hélisenne de Crenne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article moves outside the conventional methodologies of visual and literary studies and material bibliography to produce a reading of the Angoysses douloureuses that demonstrates how the text and the material object of the book can be read together to recreate inscribed reading practices, including those of women readers in addition to the reading communities (of women) evoked by the text alone. The narrative of the Angoysses douloureuses displays a preoccupation with representing the materiality of the text throughout the work by means of letters exchanged between the lovers, a single, continuous narrative written by the heroine Helisenne, a manuscript book recuperated from beside her body, and a printed book whose circulation in Paris was sanctioned by Jupiter. This interest in the text’s material form goes beyond representational issues to include woodcuts and chapter headings, showing the capacity of representation to collaborate with the materiality of the printed book in producing meaning. These material elements variously show us how the text seeks to conform to the convention of publishing women’s writing posthumously while also indicating how materiality might both anticipate and shape reading practices. They also allow us to read the material book as one that delineates the problematics of a female-authored work circulating in print at this early point in the sixteenth century.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".