Studying and Comparing Pictorial Drawings and Patterns of Chaharbagh School and Seyyed Mosque of Isfahan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives:The construction of Chaharbagh School and Seyyed Mosque of Isfahan has one century difference. In these 2 places the botanical and geometrical drawings are shown significantly and separately by having spiritual simplicity available in ornaments of tiles; however, in the infrastructure of moscuqe-school there is integration of different drawings shown as pile of colors and drawings without having specific purpose that are drawn on wall with complete details.Methods/Statistical analysis :In this project, it is benefit from library and field studies by using observation and the drawings of tile of work of Chaharbagh School and Seyyed Mosque of Isfahan are evaluated and compared and the properties of drawings of each section is analyzed and finally a table is offered for their comparison.Findings:In continuation of research, it is specified that generally the ornaments and drawings available in places belonging to Safavid dynasty, are originating from beautiful nature that are differently revealed in layout of walls, cloths and other things. The space of painting is more free and in the background there is mixture of tableau and space. Moreover, these mixed drawings are inspired from nature and beauty that not only does not lead to fatigue of eye and soul, but also refresh the human soul. Most of the artists during Qajar dynasty by self-learned method and by means of picture attempted to be familiar with architecture of western culture.Application/Improvements: Therefore, maybe it is more logical that merging these 2 systems is mainly unwanted and as a result of influence of ancient tradition from one hand and lack of being familiar with scientific and academic principles of European art.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".