Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vanitas is a type of still life popular in European art that usually includes items that symbolize the transience of life and the emptiness of earthly accomplishment. The most commonly depicted object in Vanitas images is a skull. In the 17 th‐century, vanitas still‐lifes flourished in the Netherlands and especially the city of Leiden. It has been generally agreed among scholars that this phenomenon was a result of Leiden’s unique cultural atmosphere. In 1575, when Leiden University was established, it quickly became one of the leading intellectual institutions in Europe, attracting an international community of renowned humanist scholars and scientists. Since the university was heavily under the influence of Calvinist and Neo‐Stoicist scholars, whose philosophies emphasized greatly the “brevity of life”, it has been accepted that this cultural atmosphere promoted the vogue for Vanitas Still lifes in Leiden. However, there is another strong intellectual force in the city that has been overlooked by art historians, the rapid development of scientific studies and the formation of ‘curiosity cabinets’, where natural and artistic artefacts were displayed together. There were a number of prominent scientists who researched and taught in Leiden University, and they often held labs and demonstrations of anatomy dissection for the public. Furthermore, according to several inventories from the time, people also collected skulls as precious objects. Hence, I would like to propose that the great interest in science, shared by scholars and the public, was an alternative factor that pushed Vanitas painting to its high point in Leiden.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".