MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975552966 · doi:10.1126/science.1195252

Looking Through the Paint <b>Close Examination</b> Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries <b> <i>Marjorie E. Wieseman and Ashok Roy, Curators</i> </b> National Gallery, London. Through 12 September, 2010. www.nationalgallery.org.uk/ <b>A Closer Look</b> Deceptions and Discoveries <b> <i>by Marjorie E. Wieseman</i> </b> National Gallery, London, 2010. 96 pp. Paper, $15, £6.99. ISBN 9781857094862.

2010· article· en· W1975552966 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Fara

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionPaintingArtArt historyVisual artsArt galleryMedia studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exhibition at the National Gallery, London, and the accompanying book offer case studies in which science has improved our understanding of paintings in the gallery's collections.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.027

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207