MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116875995 · doi:10.11114/ijsss.v9i1.5109

The Cosmos in “Ginevra de’ Benci’’ by Leonardo da Vinci

2020· article· en· W3116875995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Grigol Keshelava

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Science Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistorical Astronomy and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaintingArtShadow (psychology)StarsPlanetArt historyCelestial sphereFace (sociological concept)SkyObject (grammar)Quarter (Canadian coin)Cosmos (plant)AstronomyPhysicsPhilosophyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leonardo observed the celestial phenomena to study the phenomenon of light and shadow, which was to be used in painting. The object of the research is the painting “Ginevra de’ Benci’’. This work was created in 1474-1478 by Leonardo da Vinci. In the left half of the painting the oval shape detail bordered with faint contour is observed. Trough the Paint X program, we moved this detail to the right part of the painting in the place of a round shadow near the face of Ginevra. According to our interpretation, the bright and oval face of Ginevra de’ Benci is a metaphorical image of the moon. The dark background around it is a cosmos with numerous stars. Below the displaced detail is a quarter of the sphere that resembles the Earth’s surface and is associated with our planet. The displaced detail represents the oval and is associated with the moon. The layout of the dark spots on the sphere is compared to the relief of the moon, which is described on a modern photo. Finally we can think that the painting describes the earth, the moon, the cosmos, and the stars.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.313
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueInternational Journal of Social Science StudiesSame topicHistorical Astronomy and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207