Display of Art in the Roman Palace 1550–1750
Bibliographic record
Abstract
comptes rendus 171 harsh battle ensued that sought to deprive Giovanni Francesco (the legitimate son of Giovanni and Livia) of his legal rights and to "forget" the existence of Livia, who was deemed to be "arrogant" because she sought to defend her property, her rights, and her inheritance by mounting a long resistance, both in life and in the courts.After being carried away from Venice, by deceit, she was kept prisoner in Florence, in the Fortezza di Belvedere, for almost sixteen years, forgotten by nearly everyone.She was rescued by chance and, through the authorization of Grand Duke Ferdinando II, allowed to spend her final days in the villa Le Macine, in Montughi, where she died in 1655.The last outrage against her was perpetrated by her only surviving child, Giovanni Francesco Maria, who had been raised at court after his father's death; the son considered his mother to be a whore and even attempted to harm her physically.Giovanni and Livia's story thoroughly engages the reader.Dooley's narrative presents a vivid image of life in Florence and at the Medici court, while providing a compelling analysis of Giovanni's and Livia's feelings and thoughts.The reader almost can "see" and "feel" what Livia and Giovanni were going through.Though primarily the narrative of a love story, the volume also provides its readers with a fine analysis of the legal, social, intellectual, and religious realities of the time, all explained with great clarity.The most important aspects of the book, however, are the careful reading of the primary sources and the balanced interpretation of these sources.As such, this work is an excellent example of how microhistory should be approached and written.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".