Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epochal restoration of the entire interior decoration of the Villa Farnesina, which is currently underway by the Istituto Centrale del Restauro, is revealing the identification of a rich variety of technical issues. Specifically, the campaign in the Sala delle Prospettive, undertaken between 1976 and 1983, focuses on several new matters relating to the Renaissance tradition of Roman fresco painting. Chemical analysis of the intonaco coupled with the detailed reconstruction of the giornate results in a fascinating reevaluation of the frescoes themselves relating to their manufacture. The inspection of the surfaces reveals the exact manner in which the frescoes were constructed, making use of cartoni and spolveri, or on occasion of no final preparatory drawings at all. Secondly, the restoration of 14 pilasters a grottesche in the Sala della Galatea clearly demonstrates the exclusive use of spolveri. The remaining 11 pilasters will be cleaned in 1985. Once this campaign in the room is completed, then the exact nature of this early 16th-century cycle, with its 19th-century ‘restorations,’ will be identifiable, and will subsequently be integrated with the restoration of the Loggia di Psiche, which will commence in 1985.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".