MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622002274 · doi:10.26522/gbuujh.v2i0.1489

Women in Italian Renaissance Art: Representation, Societal Ideals, and Identity

2017· article· en· W2622002274 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Eva Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuethe general brock university Undergraduate journal of history · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenaissance artThe RenaissanceRenaissance literaturePoliticsIdentity (music)The artsMasculinityItalian RenaissanceGeniusSociologyArtTheme (computing)PortraitPaintingAestheticsGender studiesLiteratureArt historyVisual artsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major theme regarding the life of a Renaissance woman was that of subjugation—a woman was denied all political rights and considered the legal ‘object’ of their father or their husband. However, with the Renaissance being characterized as a period of rebirth, cultural development, and intellectual growth, the area of much debate within Italian urban societies was that of women’s roles. Hence, this paper looks to discuss the representations of women in Renaissance art such as portraits and depictions of nudity: in other words, how do the ways that women were portrayed in Renaissance art help to identify features of Renaissance society? Until 1970, scholars had not assessed the representations of women, or conducted little research on women in Italian Renaissance paintings. This paper also looks to analyze the role of gender within Renaissance art, and the ways that masculinity and femininity interact; as well as the inclusion and exclusion of women from artistic genius. Similarly, this paper also hopes to answer questions on how women utilized arts as a means of participating in the Renaissance.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuethe general brock university Undergraduate journal of historySame topicHistorical Art and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207