Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between women and art in the Renaissance and Reformation across Europe is still a relatively new area of study, and recent scholarship indicates considerable interest in all aspects of it. Women’s engagement with the arts might be categorized into three broad themes: women as artists, patrons, and subjects. This is perhaps the best way to look at this phenomenon, and a great many art historians, cultural historians, and other scholars have used these themes to structure their inquiries. Within these three themes, however, it is important to note that the women in question were almost always of the middle and upper classes, and they lived in urban settings; these were the women who, via familial wealth or, in some cases, their own resources, could afford encounters with art. Much of the scholarship on this topic has been biased toward cities on the Italian peninsula, where contextual research on economic, political, and social conditions provides a strong foundation across the chronological span. But new work on the Dutch Republic and Tudor and Stuart England, as well as occasional studies in other countries and eras, indicates that this burgeoning field will only become more popular in the near future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".