«Un saint noble », Antoine ou Gilles? Additions à un cycle hagiographique peint à Bruxelles au début du XVIe siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article discusses a cycle of the life of Saint Gilles painted in Brussels in the first quarter of the 16th century. Components of this cycle were three fragmentary panels, today in Toledo (Hospital de San Juan Bautista) and in Lille (Palais des Beaux-Arts); a panel was sold in London in 1976; and another divided between the United States and the Netherlands (New Orleans Museum of Art and 's-Heerenberg, Stichting Huis Bergh). The reconstruction proposed, for the mostpart new, is based on physical, formal, stylistic and iconographie evidence. The ensemble was commissioned through the initiative of a Carmelite (from Brussels?) whose identity is unknown. He must have been the one who developed the iconographical program and composed one of the most complete cycles of Saint Gilles to have survived. He consulted, in particular, the life of the saint drawn up by the Normand cleric Guillaume de Berneville in the second half of the 12th century. The painter seems to have closely followed the instructions, which might have been especially detailed, of the well read "designer." There did exist, it is true, in Brussels, a strong tradition when it came to narrative painting, a tradition established in 1440 by Rogier van der Weyden, whose famous Tableaux de Justice painted for the town hall constituted, until their destruction in 1695, one of the most illustrious works of the ancient Netherlands.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".