La thérapéia des sculptures en Grèce ancienne : le témoignage des sources textuelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude des textes littéraires et épigraphiques constitue le point de départ indispensable de l’enquête sur la restauration d’œuvres sculptées dans l’Antiquité. Quoique nous ne connaissions à ce jour aucun traité antique sur la conservation et la restauration en général, et encore moins concernant les sculptures, le bilan des informations, forcément ponctuelles et dispersées, voire parfois difficiles à interpréter, qui sont contenues dans les sources textuelles, nous conduit à penser que les Anciens se souciaient beaucoup d’entretenir et de restaurer les œuvres sculptées. Le caractère de leur démarche était cependant très différent du nôtre, comme l’attestent à la fois la nomenclature et les types des traitements, la nature des œuvres traitées, les circonstances et les lieux où les opérations avaient lieu, ainsi que l’identité des personnes qui en étaient responsables.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".