Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1815 and 1819, from the fall of the Empire to the second Restoration, a number of caricatures derived from Jacques-Louis David’s 1784 Oath of Horatii were produced. Visually and textually, these prints assert their relationship with the famous picture while using the devices of quotation (the recycling and adaptation of an iconic figure) and parody (the burlesque imitation of a serious work). In addition to confirming the effectiveness and immediate intelligibility of David’s composition, these prints somehow equate to it in their shared goal of revealing an underlying truth, through the exaggeration of caricature. David’s work and the ensuing satirical prints belong, each in their respective historical context, to a culture of opposition. In adapting themselves to dominant culture, they convey it in a new visual language and address a new type of audience in the social arena, sites such as the Salon under the Ancien Régime or the print-shop window under the Restoration. Within the context of the Restoration and the regicidal artist’s political exile, the parodies of the Horatii participate in the critical reception of Davidian aesthetics. Moreover, the caricatures inspired by the Horatii satirize the political and social topics of the day, by delegitimizing the return of reactionary ideology, by denouncing allegiance reversals towards power, or by criticizing superficial civic values. Diverting from the virtuous rhetoric of David’s picture, the caricatures exploit the ironic mode by using antitheses: loyalty and opportunism, luminous reason and obscurantism, martial strength and decrepitude, frugality and gluttony, austerity and bourgeois materialism. It is through the density of allusion to the represented historical moment and to the adopted point of view that intertextuality emerges between the picture of the Horatii and the satirical prints.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.006 |
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".