MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794800270 · doi:10.33137/js.v1i0.28233

Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication

2017· article· en· W2794800270 on OpenAlex
Mirka Loiselle

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientonomy Journal for the Science of Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelegationDelegated authorityPrimary authorityPolitical sciencePublic administrationPublic relationsBusinessTraditional authorityLawLegal research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I expand upon the research on authority delegation begun by Overgaard and myself in our 2016 paper Authority Delegation. I argue that singular authority delegation – in which a community delegates authority over a given topic to a single expert community – should be distinguished from cases of multiple authority delegation. A community engages in multiple authority delegation iff that community delegates authority over a given topic to more than one expert community. Furthermore, multiple authority delegation can be further divided into two types: hierarchical and non-hierarchical. I examine two cases of authority delegation in the art market and argue that these cases model instances of hierarchical authority delegation.Suggested Modifications[Sciento-2017-0007]: Accept the following definitions of subtypes of authority delegation: Singular authority delegation ≡ community A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over topic x iff community A delegates authority over topic x to exactly one community.Multiple authority delegation ≡ community A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over topic x iff community A delegates authority over topic x to more than one community. Hierarchical authority delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different communities are delegated different degrees of authority over topic x.Non-hierarchical authority delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different communities are delegated the same degree of authority over topic x. [Sciento-2017-0008]: Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Monet: A work claimed to be by Monet is authentic if it is considered authentic by the Wildenstein Institute.[Sciento-2017-0009]: Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Picasso: A work claimed to be by Picasso is authentic if it is has been certified as authentic by both Maya Widmaier-Picasso and Claude Ruiz-Picasso.[Sciento-2017-0010]: Accept the following reconstruction of the authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Modigliani between 1997 and 2015: A work claimed to be by Modigliani is authentic iff (1) it is in the Ceroni catalogue raisonné or (2) if it is not in catalogue and has been certified as authentic by Marc Restellini.[Sciento-2017-0011]: Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Renoir: A work claimed to be by Renoir is authentic iff (1) it has been certified as authentic by the Wildenstein institute or (2) it has not been dismissed by the Wildenstein institute and it is included in the Bernheim-Jeune catalogue.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.017
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.249 · 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