MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125214317 · doi:10.7202/1072669ar

Un portrait de David par Nicolas-Bernard Lépicié?

2020· article· en· W3125214317 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sylvain Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueRACAR Revue d art canadienne · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortraitPaintingArtStudioArt historyHumanitiesPhilosophyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author proposes that the physiognomy of the painter Jacques-Louis David should be recognized in a Portrait d’homme belonging to the Musée Bonnat in Bayonne. This comparison is first of all based on the fairly close resemblance that exists between this head, painted by Nicolas-Bernard Lépicié (1735-84), and reliable, known effigies of David, such as his self-portrait of 1794 in the Louvre. It must be said that the quite particular characteristics of the painter have always facilitated his identification. David, in fact, had the left part of his face deformed by a swelling, the outcome of a wound received during his youth. This physical characteristic is present in Lépicié's sitter, along with other distinctive traits of the painter, such as his broad, straight brow, his circumflex-shaped eyebrows, and finally, the slightly bulging tip of his nose. We know, moreover, that the two painters each occupied a studio in the Louvre between the years 1782 and 1784. It may be that this “neighbourhood” provided the occasion for them to cultivate a certain relationship and ties of which the Bayonne canvas now constitutes the only evidence.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRACAR Revue d art canadienneSame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207