Об одном портрете юноши из собрания Государственного Эрмитажа. К проблеме осмысления римского скульптурного портрета раннеимператорского времени.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1852 the Imperial Museum of the New Hermitage bought sculptures and vases from countess’s A. G. Laval’ collection in St. Petersburg. Among those pieces was a portrait of a youth from the Emperor Augustus family (inv. A 229). Nowadays it is still unknown who the pictured person is. Since the mid-19th century scholars have proposed quite a lot of attributions. This way or that, they have connected the image with a member of the Augustus family, mainly dating the monument to the late 1st BCE — early 1st CE. This point of view seems to be convincing. Scholars have pointed out that it could be either Marcus Claudius Marcellus (B. Kohne, 1847; S. A. Gedeonov,1866), or young Octavian (O. F. Waldhauer, 1923), or young Tiberius (L. Curtius, 1935), or young Claudius (J.-Ch. Balty, 1963), or Drusus the Elder (L. Fabbrini, 1964), or one of Augustus grandsons — Gaius or Lucius (A. I. Vostchinina, 1974; Zs. Kiss, 1975; O. Ia. Neverov, 1981). From his part, the author of this work supposes the name of Nero, a son of Germanicus — the version, which will be probably not final. According to this point of view the portrait can be dated to the late 10s–20s CE. Concurrently it is shown what forms a viewer’s vision and judgment in the process of interpreting one and the same piece of art. Besides, the author highlights criteria in attributing the sculpture as an image of a member, belonging to the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. In many aspects this method is based on the approach of a well-known Russian scholar — O. F. Waldhauer, a famous A. Furtwangler’s pupil.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.013 |
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".