8. Infrared Reflectography of Edward Hopper’s High Noon: Questions of Authentication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An unprovenanced oil study, purportedly by the early American realist Edward Hopper (188* -1967), was purchased in 2007 on eBay by a pair of brothers from Ontario. It is a smaller, poorly-executed near-copy of Hopper’s High Noon at the Dayton Art Institute. Given that detailed diary entries by Hopper’s wife, Josephine, note only that four charcoal sketches preceded the final version of High Noon, and fail to mention an oil study, Gail Levin, the author of Hopper’s catalogue raisonné, has conservatively concluded that it can at best be assigned to a dedicated follower. Can Infrared Reflectography of the two paintings shed light on the question of authenticity? Many pigments used by Hopper become transparent in the Near Infrared spectrum, a fact verified by a test-panel. By using a DSLR camera, converted to detect IR, charcoal sketches on the primed canvas of the original were revealed. While IR Reflectography reveals earlier stages in the composition of the authentic High Noon, stages suggested by the charcoal sketches, IR does not provide positive proof for the authenticity of the oil sketch. The issue of authenticity became further complicated when the media, led by the Globe and Mail, took up the case of the owners and overstated the IR results. At present the IR investigation suggests only that the oil study was painted by a follower working from either Josephine’s diary or, more intriguingly, from Hopper’s own sketches, which are held in a private collection.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".