Retour aux traditions — signe de réussite sociale : les rondels de la Collection Hosmer (Université McGill, Montréal)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collection of domestic stained glass and glass paintings recently set up in the new building of the McGill School of Architecture used to decorate the main staircase and the dining-room windows of Charles Hosmer’s house, built by Montreal architect Edward Maxwell around the turn of the century. Charles R. Hosmer was then a prominent businessman, the head of Ogilvie Flour Mills, and his house on Drummond Street was a sign of his position in the flourishing city of 1900. It was to be the house of an art collector, who was interested in paintings as well as in “objets d’art,” which he would buy himself or through agents. Indeed we know from Maxwell’s ledgers that these glass paintings were acquired as a group from a London dealer of Flemish or Dutch origin, Martin van Straaten. This collection of 39 small domestic glass panels, of varied quality and origins, comprises Flemish and Dutch roundels, piecess from the Rhineland and Switzerland, and some heraldic panels. This type of glass used to adorn windows of wealthy houses, private chapels or cloisters. The roundel itself is a single piece of colourless glass, circular, oval or rectangular, painted with grisaille and silver-satin and occasionally, after the sixteenth century, with coloured enamels. The Swiss panels, on the other hand, consist of a main piece in the centre, richly framed with decorative and allegorical subjects. McGill’s Hosmer Collection is, as far as we know, unique in Canada. In acquiring it, Charles Hosmer followed the lead of British collectors, who had been keenly interested in northern European domestic glass, at least since the eighteenth century. These small panels are of average quality, although some of them are outstanding. As a group, they present a remarkable anthology of styles and techniques in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as well as examples of nineteenth-century repairs or even pastiches. The catalogue consists of a check-list according to the Corpus vitrearum norms (thus representing the first contribution to the Canadian C.V.), accompanied by detailed notices describing the current state of research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".