Color and Meaning: Practice and Theory in Renaissance Painting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renaissance et Réforme / 83But this may be another example of the typical scholarly division of labour between the Reformation on the continent and that in England.Clearly researchers of one area need to become more informed of developments on the other side of the Channel.Furthermore, Martin's attempt to explain the appeal of Familism to sixteenth-century Englishmen surely could have been assisted by Alastair Hamilton's 1981 study, The Family of Love, which quite successfully examined Niclaes' appeal for Dutchmen.Although Hamilton's study appeared too late to be included in the original article version of the chapter, some comparison could have been made for this present volume.These reservations aside, Martin's work is a welcome addition to the debate on the nature of popular religion and artisanal reform.It is a clearly written account of radical reform in England which also provides a useful introduction to the subject for undergraduate students.It definitely ought to be on the shelves of all university libraries which collect in the field of Reformation studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".