MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mannerism

2012· reference-entry· en· W4237288269 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2012
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory, Culture, and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClassicismStyle (visual arts)BaroqueSculptureArtEmperorThe RenaissanceItalian RenaissancePeriod (music)Art historyHistoryClassicsLiteratureAncient historyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mannerism or maniera is a name given to a style and period in 16th-century Italian art, chronologically positioned between the High Renaissance and the Baroque periods. The term was first applied to painting, then later to sculpture and architecture. Mannerism remains the subject of much scholarly debate centering on questions of the precise date parameters for the style, its primary formal characteristics, its application, and meaning. Nevertheless, there is a general agreement that Mannerism presented a clear departure from High Renaissance classicism, formulated by a younger generation of artists who professionally matured in the wake of the death of Raphael in 1520. Although the Mannerists took the High Renaissance style as their point of departure, the Mannerist style was diametrically opposed to the rational, harmonious, and decorous ideals of High Renaissance classicism. Mannerism, while primarily an Italian phenomenon, spread throughout northern Europe partially as a result of the presence of Italian artists at the court of François I at Fontainebleau and the proliferation and dissemination of Mannerist engravings. In the north, Mannerism flourished particularly at aristocratic and princely courts, such as the court of the King of France, François I at Fontainebleau and the court of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague. The expansion of Mannerism as a phenomenon beyond Italy has also led to the questionable extension of its application to literature and music.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistory, Culture, and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207