THE CASE OF CAPOGROSSI IN ROME: COLLECTING DATA WITH DIFFERENTTECHNOLOGIES ON A CONTEMPORARY MURAL PAINTING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper focuses on the presentation of a part of the main thematic data documenting the pathologies and the degradation problems of a contemporary mural painting, which was designed and carried out by the italian artist Giuseppe Capogrossi in 1954. This forgotten masterpiece is developed on the ceilings of the main double stairscase at the entrance of the Airone, an ex-cinema-theatre in Rome (Italy). In time, the original project was completely damaged and now the Airone cinema is abandoned since 1999; the decoration, strictly connected to the function of the original project, has been completely covered by synthetic coatings. The documentation of the observed pathologies and the original materials of the lower ceiling takes place during a restoration project in 2015–2016 and was accomplished by utilizing different technologies in order to facilitate the collecting of the main data within several graphic thematic tables. The challenge of this documentation was to create a contact point, and perhaps also a contamination, between the practices of CAD graphic documentation, restoration and GIS technology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".