MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770424942 · doi:10.1163/18253911-03203008

Natural Painting and the New Science in Seventeenth-Century Florence

2017· article· en· W2770424942 on OpenAlex
Eva Struhal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuncius · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Art History Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallelsPaintingImitationStyle (visual arts)EPICRepresentation (politics)The artsArt historyArtNatural (archaeology)PhilosophyFine artLiteratureHistoryVisual artsPsychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article compares the techniques of observation and experimentation (“esperienze”) practiced by members of the Accademia del Cimento with the “pure imitation of truth” pursued by Florentine painter Lorenzo Lippi (1606–1665). Lippi’s art reveals striking parallels between developments in the fine arts and the sciences in seventeenth-century Florence, particularly in their moral commitment towards the truthful representation of nature and a matter-of-fact style of representation. Despite these parallels, it is interesting to note that in his mock-epic Il Malmantile Racquistato , Lippi parodied the truth claims made by science as well as its modes of knowledge creation.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.211 · 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