Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines a work painted by David in Rome in 1779 when the artist was a pensioner of the King in the Academy of France (1775-80). An academic figure study on the theme of St. Jerome, the work was executed in the framework of assignments required of young pensioners at the time. Since its “reappearance” 40 years ago, the St. Jerome has received but little attention until now from Davidian criticism. An exception was Antoine Schnapper’s initial investigation of the work in an important article in the Revue du Louvre (1974) where he sought to establish a chronology of David’s works from his first stay in Rome. Schnapper noted for example the “strongly Caravaggesque character” of the painting, which he related to Ribera’s aesthetic and also to that of the Bolognese who often treated the subject, Guercino in particular. But this beginning, motivated especially by the picture’s clear affiliation with luminist painting of the seventeenth century, did not have a sequel, for no serious attempt has been made since to identify clearly a work that might have served David as a model. The author presents a stylistic comparison enabling him to place the St. Jerome in direct relation with a Ribera canvas painted in 1626 on the theme of St. Jerome and the angel of the Last Judgment. David was able to see this work during his trip to Naples in the summer of 1779, a sojourn that shortly preceded execution of the painting now in Québec. The present study is also concerned to locate the work within the artist’s production in Rome, thus underlining its importance to the formation of what is generally regarded as Davidian style.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.003 |
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".