Epitaph of Johann Jungshulz in the church of St. Mary of the former Dominican monastery in Elbląg (Elbing)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The funeral epigraphic material of Elbląg and the surrounding area, relating to the period preceding the XVIth century, remains, first of all thanks to the researches of Polish epigraphists, relatively more explored and introduced into the scientific circulation array. At the same time the Renaissance-Baroque gravestone monument of the XVIth–XVIIth centuries, which is extremely important for the comprehensive study of the reformed Circum-Baltic, often continues to need a detailed research commentary. To the epitaph of the burgomaster of Elbing (Elbląg) Johann Jungschultz (1583–1630), as well as to the Latin text of the funeral Eulogy, associated with this epitaph, composed by the Bohemian humanist Venceslav Klemens, is expected to address in this article. The epitaph of Johann Jungschultz was established in 1630–1640. From the compositional point of view closest to the epitaph of Johann Jungschultz, and almost prototypical for it, is the epitaph of Edward Blemke (1591), in the St. Mary’s church of Gdansk. It allows to speak about the author of the epitaph of Johann Jungschultz as oriented to samples of the Dutch monumental tombstones of the end of the XVIth century, or even as belonging to the circle of Willem van den Blocke (circa 1550–1628), which was the principal mediator of the influence of the Dutch art in the South-Eastern Baltic in the end of XVIth – the first quarter of the XVIIth century. The compositional and decorative solution of the epitaph also has close matches in the works of Johann Pfister (1573 – circa 1642/1645 or 1648).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".