Bibliographic record
Abstract
While panoramas and dioramas are widely seen as representational forms and were once celebrated for their realism, they had an ambivalent status as art forms and evoked passionately discordant reactions from critics and observers. The ambivalent responses to these forms have been understood in terms of elitist reactions to their mass appeal and to their deception. The implications of the sensorial disruption that temporary inhabitants of these structures experienced in their initial encounters with them has not been given much attention. The panorama and diorama strove beyond representational depiction and towards the production of a full-bodied experience. Hence, they should be considered not as novelty paintings, nor even as primarily visual media, as is typically the case, but rather as significant forms of intermedia that both relied upon and re-educated the sensorial capacities of their inhabiting human subjects. This article accordingly treats panoramic and dioramic forms as more architectural than artistic and argues for their recognition as intersensorial and transitory constructions that produced a normative reordering of intersensorial subjective space.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".