Studying the Place of Intertextuality in Iranian Painting (Case Samples: Qajar Era)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intertextuality studies are as one of the significant approaches in literature and art. This term for the first time was proposed by Julia Kristeva 60s and later it was expanded by persons such as Roland Barthes, Gerard Genette & et al. Nowadays we are living in a world which is full of texts and these texts are born in it, grow and finally give their place to other texts but they aren’t disappeared. These texts are knotted to each other with intertextuality rules and they have interaction with each other. They sometimes deny or confirm each other but any way they influence on each other. In fact existence of sign world and existing texts and their effects in creation of each artistic effect are inevitable.This paper intends to consider the applicable studies of intertextuality in Iranian community art by concentrating on Qajar era painting. And it refers to the role of intertextuality in producing and reading the works by studying the case samples.The methodology in this research with review of art history and due to the analyses done on the works (sample to sample) will be analytic-descriptive according to the allegorical method.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".