The Technical Examination of a Painting that Passed Through the Hands of Sienese Restorer and Forger Icilio Federico Joni
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A panel painting of the Crucifixion belonging to the Fogg Art Museumand attributed to an imitator of the 14th-century northern Italian painterAltichiero was technically examined in order to address questions about itsauthenticity. Suspicions about the painting had been raised on technicalgrounds and because it was purchased from the famous Sienese restorerand forger Icilio Federico Joni (1866-1946). The materials and techniqueof the painting were studied and compared to 14th-century Italian panelpainting practices and to restoration and forging techniques described byJoni. The examination shows that the distinction between a heavily restoredpainting and a fake can be ambiguous, particularly when only a vestige ofthe original remains. The issues raised when dealing with such ‘renovatedruins’, as well as the social context that created an environment conduciveto the production and marketing of fakes in Italy in the late 19th and early20th centuries, are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".