MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097772011 · doi:10.3138/ecf.33.1.25

History, Anecdote, and Accuracy: Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier’s <i>Première lecture, chez Madame Geoffrin, de l’ “Orphelin de la Chine,” tragédie de Voltaire, en 1755</i>

2020· article· en· W3097772011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica L. Fripp

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalonAnecdotePaintingContext (archaeology)CriticismAnachronismDismissalExhibitionArt historyArtBourgeoisieWoodcutLiteratureHistoryPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier’s Première lecture, chez Madame Geoffrin, de l’ “Orphelin de la Chine,” tragédie de Voltaire, en 1755 (1812) frequently appears in books, articles, and websites as an illustration of the famous salon of Mme Geoffrin. Most scholarship on the painting focuses on its status as a false “document,” and situates it within the context of Post-Revolution nostalgia for the ancien régime. These discussions ignore two key parts of this work’s history: its purchase by Joséphine de Beauharnais, and the critical reaction to its exhibition at the Salon of 1814. This essay explores these two interconnected aspects. First, I situate Joséphine’s interest in the broader cultural context of salonnières’ use of art to promote a femino centric history of the salon. Second, I consider how critics fixated on the painting’s anachronism, and deemed that aspect necessary to its success. Ultimately, I argue that the criticism and eventual dismissal of the work is rooted in broader inter pretations of the anecdotal genre scenes, and women’s interest in those subjects, as “feminine.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicHistorical Art and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207