Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Enzo Giannelli's h'uomo che sognava ì cavalli^a volume gathering together a series of private discourses by Sandro Penna, we possess a remarkable portrait of the artist as an old man.That is, of an eccentric individual burdened with a thousand anxieties and preoccupations, delighted to engage in all variet}' of gossip, empowered with a sparkling sense of humour and still very much buzzing with life.From the abundant material contained in Uiiomo che sognava ì cavalli it is possible to discover much about Penna's earliest sexual exploits.For instance, the interested part}^recounts that as a small child, somewhere around the age of two, he found himself alone in a garden with before him an attractive girl and baby boy, probably brother and sister.Suddenly, in an act of exhibitionism, he raised his clothing and displayed his genitalia to these two people.But this was anything but a one-off incident.It would seem, in fact, that as a young child Penna regularly indulged in acts of indecent exposure.The poet goes on to inform Giannelli that once, when he was around ten or eleven, a lady asked him if he felt ashamed about his deviant behaviour."Mah, può darsi che sia una cosa vergognosa" (98), thought Penna, but in reality he found the whole thing enjoyable.It was then that the budding poet dreamt up the ensuing ditt}' in rhyming ottonari^reproduced by Giannelli in the course of his book: Sono un bambino moccioso terribile e capriccioso sempre mi penzola il coso che non trovo vergognoso.(98)Needles to say, the noun "coso" is intended to refer to the subject's phal- lus.It is worth pointing out that whilst the sexual organ is camouflaged behind a euphemism, it is at the same time placed in a structurally marked position at the end of the penultimate verse in rhyme with the other three
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".