The Vues d’optique Prints of the 18th — First Quarter of the 19th Century: From Inscriptions to Dating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inscriptions on the “marginal” kinds of engravings (optical prints, folk woodcuts, fashion prints, etc.) usually include only the title of an engraving, the date, and the authorship, rarely, but at the same time — a lot of other inscriptions: serial numbers, the names of printers and publishers, their addresses, and so on. Despite the seeming insignificance of this information, it can be valuable, allowing to establish, in particular, the date. The optical prints of the 18th — first quarter of the 19th century, a popular type of engravings, only recently has become the subject of special study. They usually do not have any authorship, though they do have prototypes in classical engravings. They are particularly the engravings with views of St. Petersburg made by Russian 18th century engravers after drawings by M. Makhaev. The dating of “video-engravings” is difficult, there are contradictions in the literature”, — noted an expert on “Makhaev’s optic prints”, M. Alexeyeva. With regard to Augsburg and Italian editions, these contradictions can be removed through the research in the Augsburg City Archive and thanks to revealed Remondini publishing house catalogs. The analysis of the inscriptions in the margins can significantly refine the dating of the London and Paris editions of optical prints. English and French printers and publishers often wrote their addresses. From the comparison with address books of the 18th — early 19th centuries it is possible to determine the period of the release of various prints. Some of the publishers pointed out their address on prints, while others put down the names of their ancestors from whom they inherited the printing business. The same can be said about London publishers. In such cases, it is clear that they printed their engravings from the same printing plates; therefore, you can build a certain sequence of publications of certain engravings by different publishers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".