Bibliographic record
Abstract
In eighteenth‐century Italy, anatomical waxworks were considered particularly apt to represent the human body. Life‐size, coloured, three‐dimensional and soft and moist‐looking, they could offer compelling replicas of the living body. This essay explores the significance of material properties of wax, such as softness and malleability, in the fashioning of anatomical wax‐modelling as a reliable source of medical knowledge. It does so by focusing on the case of two eighteenth‐century Bolognese women, the anatomist Anna Morandi Manzolini and the holy woman Laura Chiarini, who became famous as skilled wax‐modellers. Attention is drawn to the gendering of wax‐modelling as an activity that resonated with long‐standing views linking generation with the impression of soft matter. The shifting meaning of wax in the context of the fluid boundaries of early modern domains of the natural, preternatural and supernatural is also considered in the light of Morandi's and Chiarini's different practices of wax‐modelling. (pp. 522–550)
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".