Maps, Painting and Lies Portraying Napoleon's Battlefields in Northern Italy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of Giuseppe Bagetti's landscape sketches, watercolours, oil paintings and engravings with contemporary maps and the existing landscape reveals that in the creation of Bagetti's landscapes, narrative played a role that differed in cartographic and artistic representations. The comparison also demonstrates that his images were powerful constructions that were more successful in reflecting a narrative of glorious conquest than was possible through cartography. This paper offers a critical examination of Bagetti's representations of Napoleon's northern Italian campaign, which he sketched and painted between 1802 and 1809. Bagetti's paintings were neither pacifist nor an expression of Piedmontese patriotism but instead were inspired by, and constructed according to, a narrative about the conquest that reflected the views of the French authorities. The narrative found expression in formal written instructions from the central cartographical office in the Dépôt de la guerre, Paris, in verbal and written instructions from Bagetti's immediate superior, Jean François Martinel, and in letters personally addressed to Bagetti from the officer commanding the Dépôt. It is clear from a careful reading of the correspondence and from a comparison of Bagetti's paintings with both the present landscape and maps made at the time that Bagetti's disputes with his supervisors revolved around protecting his artistic integrity and reputation rather than resisting the authority of a foreign regime.
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.
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 it