The restoration of historic buildings between 1835 and 1929 : the portuguese taste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The glorification of the historical monument - a European phenomenon that emerged during the first quarter of the 19th Century - occupied a place of great theoretical and iconographic importance in the Portuguese press. Through engravings, its image attained a power of synthesis, both in the creation of symbols and in the understanding of stylistic categories, becoming a major driving force behind the greater value that was given to the medieval architectural heritage and its consequent restoration. Despite being given a relatively ineffective and somewhat belated administrative and legal framework, the prestige and popularity of medieval monuments were sufficient to ensure a significant number of restoration works after 1840. Literature on art, the press and manuscript sources of the period, sought to identify the principles to underlie the idea of restoration in Portugal between 1839 and 1925, as compared to models adopted throughout Europe. Although Portuguese artistic culture lagged far behind other European nations, the restoration of medieval religious architecture was common practice in Portugal at that time, both due to the idea that unity had always been one of the fundamental principles of architecture and because the cult of monuments stemmed from a mythical and symbolic production of national identity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".