Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to offer an original overview of Pietro Aretino’s experience in navigating and attempting to dominate the chivalric tradition. Aretino, usually considered — if at all — an ‘additional chivalric writer,’ longed to be recognized as one of the greats in this field; however, his four attempts — Marfisa (1535), Angelica (1536), Orlandino (1540), and Astolfeida (1547) — were left unfinished and for the most part have remained buried beneath other countless chivalric imitative works. The Marfisa and the Angelica are directly linked to Ludovico Ariosto’s ‘bestseller,’ the Furioso, and aimed to be an integration of tradition and invention, bridging the gap of the literary values of the past while still maintaining a unique poetic interpretation. The Orlandino and the Astolfeida are anti-chivalric fragments that portray a different view of the chivalric tradition, redesigning the model and foreshadowing what would later be considered the poema eroicomico. Aretino’s place in the chivalric tradition falls between the expiration of the chivalric genre and the launch of the mock-epic, rendering his experience and position unique and matchless in relation to the studies of court culture in Renaissance Italy and the historical context of the romance epic and its metamorphosis. This dissertation explores Aretino’s four chivalric fragments and demonstrates that the whole picture — Aretino’s multi-layered life experiences, his unconventional writing trajectories, the unique space and time in which his distinct chivalric fragments came to be — offers a significant and never-before-seen glimpse of Pietro Aretino as he recaptured the chivalric tradition. The investigation is carried out in five chapters and a conclusion: Chapter 1 (Life and Works), Chapter 2 (Marfisa), Chapter 3 (Angelica), Chapter 4 (Orlandino), Chapter 5 (Astolfeida). Chapters 2-5 consist of a preface to the work being analyzed and five subsequent parts: Content, Characters, Structure, Language and Style, and Legacy. The Conclusion, followed by the Bibliography, summarizes and reflects on the research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".