The Problem of Artifacts in Saint Petersburg’s Architecture in the Second Quarter of the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present article the problem of artifact in architecture is examined as a phenomenon of inclusion of the original or reproduced object from another era or another culture in composition of an architectural work of the Modern period. The problem of artifact in architecture of the Modern period arose in the second half of the 18th century due to real acquaintance of the European culture to heritage of antiquity and the culture of the ancient East. However till the 19th century stylization predominated. In the 30s of the 19th century in St. Petersburg architecture an important period in the development of the European art and world outlook finished. The century of eclecticism began. And its first phase passed under the sign of “historicism” or “an archaeological method”. Masters of historicism entered antique prototypes into the composition of their works, trying to reproduce them with maximum accuracy. The “artifact” included in composition often was opposed to the general character of a construction. In the second half of the 19th century the eclectic method followed a way of free mixture and configuration of elements of different historical styles. Imaginary artifacts gave way to the museum pieces which were located in interiors again as was in the 18th century.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".