Dessin et non finito après le Jugement Dernier de Michel-Ange : l’espérance de la grâce et du salut.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the analysis of Michelangelo’s last drawings and the spiritual context to which they were destined. The most important characteristic of these drawings is that they are unfinished (non finito), which questions the intentions of the artist who practiced non finito in his early works. The last drawings – the most abundant production at a time when Michelangelo devoted himself to architecture – pose several questions about the purpose and its specificity. Several drawings were destined to be offered to intimate members of the circle of Viterbo. Vittoria Colonna, great devotee and intimate friend of Michelangelo was a member until 1547. Other drawings were characterized by the non finito that questioned their function. Was the non finito intentional or not? Why are Michelangelo’s last drawings, all in this technique? We must turn towards the increasingly intense spirituality of the artist, in the last years of his life, in order to attempt finding an answer. At the moment of the creation of the Last Judgment, he was very close to Vittoria Colonna and to the circle of Viterbo, whose aspiration was the renewal of the Christian religion by returning to a primitive faith. Michelangelo belonged to the circle of Viterbo that advocated a more authentic religiousness, preceding by some ten years the decisions of the Council of Trent.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".