MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113277171 · doi:10.18688/aa188-2-17

The Vues d’optique Prints of the 18th — First Quarter of the 19th Century: From Inscriptions to Dating

2018· article· en· W3113277171 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iuliia B. Demidenko

Bibliographic record

VenueActual Problems of Theory and History of Art · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodcutQuarter (Canadian coin)Period (music)Subject (documents)HistoryPublishingPrintmakingVisual artsEgyptologyArt historyArtClassicsArchaeologyLiteratureLibrary sciencePaintingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActual Problems of Theory and History of ArtSame topicRenaissance Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207