“Neither Poets, Painters, nor Sculptors”: Classical Mimesis and the Art of Female Hairdressing in Eighteenth-Century France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the astute and often satirical Tableau de Paris (1781–88), Louis-Sébastien Mercier writes about the emergence of an unusual literary genre: the hair-dresser’s manifesto. In the eighteenth century, multiple texts boldly claimed hair dressing’s status as a liberal art, on par with the fine arts of poetry, painting, and sculpture. With the rise of the celebrity hairdresser, among them Legros de Rumigny and Autié Léonard, a new notion of the individual hair-dresser as a creator and artist developed from 1760 to 1780 through the adoption and manipulation of aesthetic theories. By examining this thriving literary genre, this article traces the extent to which classical mimesis and the contemporaneous paragone debates of the second half of the century—which deliberated the relative merits of sculpture and painting—breached the walls of the French Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture to inform a wide range of artistic and artisanal production in France.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".