MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607014868 · doi:10.18688/aa166-2-15

On the Mosaic of the Main Porch of San Marco in Venice: Towards a Multi-Methodological Approach to Mosaics Study.

2016· article· en· W2607014868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valentina Cantone

Bibliographic record

VenueActual Problems of Theory and History of Art · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Art History Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorchMosaicVault (architecture)Art historyByzantine architectureSequence (biology)ArtDoorsQuarter (Canadian coin)PaintingVisual artsHistoryComputer scienceClassicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After large contributions made by Otto Demus and Renato Polacco, the inner porch of San Marco was rigorously studied, but only single elements of its complex structure were taken into consideration. Scholars have agreed neither on the chronological sequence of the rows which compose the portal, nor on the original portal decoration. The formal analysis of the mosaic decoration has been implemented to clarify the chronological sequence of the Byzantine ateliers from the second half of the 11th century to the early 12th century. Other researches made a new statement regarding the doors that arrived in Venice between the last quarter of the 11th century and the beginning of the 12th century, one of them actually in use in the main portal. Many questions still remain. Was the portal structure originally made of three tiers or four (counting also the hypothetical vault demolished in the 16th century in order to open the light well called “pozzo”)? Are the di erences in quality of painting of the same tier due to restorations or to a di erent approach used in the images of different saints? Was there more than one artist involved in the process? There are also a lot of questions about the original door of the porch. The actual door of the main porch opening was offered by Leo da Molino († 1138), Procuratore di rispetto of the church of San Marco in the year 1112. It should be dated 10 to 30 years later than the portal, if we accept that the first phase of the porch was completed in the last quarter of the 11th century. The author reconsiders the recent studies of the main porch of San Marco drawing on an integrated approach. An attempt has been made to clarify the chronological phases of the architectural structure by using techniques like Geophysical prospections, analyzing glass materials, mapping different restorations and confronting the data of the multispectral analysis with the documents conserved in the archives of the Procuratoria di San Marco. e goal of the research is to study the mosaic within its structural, material, devotional, and ideological context trying to give the answers to all newly opened questions.

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 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActual Problems of Theory and History of ArtSame topicArchitecture and Art History StudiesFrench-language works237,207