MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2858933238 · doi:10.30853/manuscript.2018-7.24

MILITARY PARADE IN THE RUSSIAN PAINTING OF THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE XIX CENTURY AS A SYMBOL OF GLORIFICATION OF THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS I: REPRESENTATION OF CLASSICISTIC IDEA IN THE CANVASES OF ROMANTIC ARTISTIC MOVEMENT (BY THE EXAMPLE OF A. I. LADURNER’S AND G. G. CHERNETSOV’S PAINTINGS)

2018· article· en· W2858933238 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueManuscript · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParadeSymbol (formal)EmperorPaintingArtQuarter (Canadian coin)Style (visual arts)Visual artsArt historyIconographyRepresentation (politics)LiteratureAncient historyHistoryPoliticsPhilosophyArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to identifying the peculiarities of depicting and interpreting military parade in the Russian easel painting of the second quarter of the XIX century. Military parade is considered as a symbol of glorification of the rule of the emperor Nicholas I. The author analyzes the techniques to develop artistic spaces designed in the romantic style but satisfying the classicistic tradition to perpetuate the monarch’s image. A. I. Ladurner’s and G. G. Chernetsov’s canvases depicting the erection of the monument to the autocrat Alexander I on the Palace Square in 1834 serve as the examples of pictorial narration.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.198 · 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