MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156248770 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2013-0128

A review of imaging methods in analysis of works of art: Thermographic imaging method in art analysis

2014· review· en· W2156248770 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of BathUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsPaintingSet (abstract data type)PhysicsVisual artsData scienceComputer scienceArt historyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses a number of modern techniques used for the analysis of works of art. The most widely used approaches as well as lesser known ones are outlined in terms of their applications and the kind of information on the condition of artworks that can be extracted. Special attention is paid to the method of thermographic analysis of works of pictorial art. The principles of the technique, various computational approaches, and safety concerns are discussed. A set of examples is provided for the demonstration of the capabilities of thermographic assessment, including a range of real canvas and panel paintings exhibited in museums and in private 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.318 · 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