Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article reviews the Italian influence on the Russian garden art from the second half of the 15th to the end of the 17th century. It considers the version that the first “Italian” gardens were created during the period of the Moscow Kremlin architectural ensemble building and the surrounding area reconstruction. The appearance of the Moscow first “upper” gardens is associated with the construction of the Grand Prince’s Palace complex. The gardens were organized on the ground floor arches of the buildings. Planting of a vast garden across the Moscow River, opposite the Palace, was a part of the Italian development plan for the territory around the Kremlin and was based on the Renaissance principles of its construction - relocation of the garden from a confined space to an open, well-surveyed place. According to historical sources, despite the weakening of contacts with Italy, the “Italian” look of the Kremlin Palace had been carefully preserved up to the 17th century, when the upper gardens had become widespread. In the 17th century, there was growing interest in the countryside decorative gardens in Russia. The look and layout of some of the gardens around the suburban Tsar Estate Izmaylovo put foreign travelers in remembrance of Italian gardens. Those gardens were the “Apothecary Garden” and the “Garden with the Amusing Chambers and Maze”. Some literary descriptions and engravings confirm these assessments. Numerous examples of the West European garden art of the late Middle Ages could be found in one of Moscow districts - the German Quarter - where there were Italians among the permanent residents as well. The article analyzes the specific examples of utilization of the Italian Renaissance art in the creation of the Old Russian gardens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".