Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dutch still-life is a distinctive cultural phenomenon of the 17th century. Collecting of rarities, curiosities, plants, paintings, sculptures and many other rare things was characteristic for that period. Seashells which were brought from the exotic countries attracted the attention and love of collectors and artists. J. Hoefnagel was one of the first who took an interest to seashells in the emblems. In the early Dutch flower still-life shells were found occasionally but from the beginning of the first quarter of the 17th century artists started to add these graceful creations almost into all compositions with flower bouquets and fruits. New type of still-life with seashells appeared abundantly in painting of Balthasar van der Ast, Jan Davidsz de Heеm, Abraham Beyeren, Willem Kalf and others. While the naturalism in still-life painting brought to the maximum, there was a problem of veracity in depicting shells in the engravings, for example, in Rembrandt’s work. This problem was eventually solved only in the second half of the 17th century, so engravings and zoological illustrations began to show the curl of the shells in its correct direction, exactly clockwise. This research poses problems of the appearance of shells as collectibles and Dutch still-life’ motifs, visual traditions and shells’ classification in the paintings. The article is relevant with interdisciplinary method; some mollusks zoological names with indication of their origin place are given; the cultural and historical context is generalized; the stylistic analysis takes into account the emblematics’ traditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".