The Study of Plant Designs in Painting (Beginning of Islam to the Early 8th Century AH)
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
<p>The use of plant designs in artistic works of different nations since a long time ago indicates a close relationship between religion, culture, traditions and rituals in any nation with nature. These designs were usually depicted with a symbolic approach and ritual attitude. In ancient Iran, using plant designs has found a mythical aspect or has been used with a symbolic-decorative approach in different works.</p><p>With the arrival of Islam to Iran, this attitude has gradually changed and using plant designs was not done only to express symbols, myth-making or shows its holiness but also it found a scientific and typology aspect in the remaining works of the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 8rh centuries AH. Now, a question arises that were the plant designs depicted in painting of the above periods merely with the aim of expressing the symbolic or decorative aspect or were the other aspects considered? This paper was aimed to answer the above question and confirm the hypothesis that the designs of nature in painting of the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 8<sup>th</sup> centuries AH were done due to the sanction of portrait painting at the beginning of Islam with a focus on the introduction of the performance of useful plants. The tangible representation of them and decoration of literary texts and the expression of the symbolic aspect of plant were not considered. In this regard, it was attempted to refer to little documents in library to describe and analyze the plant designs in painting (the beginning of Islam to the early 8<sup>th</sup> century AH).</p>
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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