Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article outlines the history of representations of Pompeii, from the discovery of the site in 1748 to the present day. It ties artistic interpretations to the development of archaeological research, changing forms of patronage, and evolving audiences. Initially, images of Pompeii were produced under Royal patronage. As soon as the site became known across Europe, adventurers took it upon themselves to produce different kinds of views, intended for armchair travelers. Come the industrial revolution, and these representations split into two broad categories: tourist views, responding to market forces on the one hand, and state-sponsored, scientific surveys on the other. These changing forms of patronage influenced the aesthetic sensibilities of the images. The Bourbons wanted the images of Pompeii to contribute to their glory; adventurers cast a much more disinterested gaze at their subject matter; and scientists sought to achieve something of a subjective self-erasure, as it were, in their pursuit of a purely objective reading of the ancient city. Pictorial composition reflected these changing attitudes. Initially, objects looked like jewels, carefully enshrined inside the picture frame. As time passed, the objects were gradually related back to their original context. Background elements could be seen, and functional connections were made evident. The city finally appeared entire, reading as an organic unity connected to the landscape. Scientists pushed the process even further, pulverizing the city into multiple layers of statistical information.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.008 |
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".