Bibliographic record
Abstract
In early sixteenth-century France, architecture was more an idea than a set of buildings. Architecture was drawn upon as a rhetorical authority around 1500, where sculptors, painters, goldsmiths, printers, masons, and other skilled craftsmen strived to act as architects in the media in which they were skilled. Rhétoriqueurs used the architectural idiom increasingly to flatter patrons and receive commissions. Perhaps due to the fact that “architecture” was not circumscribed by guild membership, it was often conceptually elided with other notions like sculpture, the antique, and ornament. This thesis reconsiders the relationships between the artistic categories of architecture, sculpture, and painting. It also analyses the word “ornament”, and suggests that the term assumed ambiguous designations in the early modern period that rarely reflected the definitions it inherited from eighteenth-century contexts. Four chapters establish how architecture as an idea is given presence in the early decades of the sixteenth century. The first chapter shows how ceramicists, painters, and sculptors practiced “architecture” when they migrated to France to furnish the royal chateaux. The chapter further argues that concepts of order and license were derived from these various craft contexts, and related less to concepts of harmony and proportion that has been conventionally attributed to “classical” architecture. The second chapter is an exploration of architecture’s corpus as a collection of objects. With this in mind, the chapter investigates the relationship between the culture of collecting, the naming of objects, and the appeal of the fragment. Chapter three shows how architecture was commonly presented as a frame, particularly in royal entries and as title pages. The final chapter shows how some of the most enduring architectural types, particularly the temple, were most effectively expressed in miniature and as what we conventionally think of as ornament.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".