Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The moralizing force of Manet's painting is the subject of this chapter. Manet's sense of the Second Empire's decadence can be compared to Géricault's earlier disgust for the Bourbon monarchy, and when Olympia was vilified he had lost faith in French society to a degree comparable to Géricault. Of all the critics of Olympia, Jean Ravenel came closest to understanding Manet's point of view, and his summary of the painting is analyzed at some length. On another level, Olympia was painted against Michelet's L'amour (1859) and La Femme (1860). Zola, however, found Michelet's moral sense compelling, and his first novel, La confession de Claude, written before he met Manet, takes up Michelet's self-declared task: to restore to marriage an ideal love. But if Claude's aspirations are high, Zola recognized that his fiction's power depended on those aspirations crumbling beneath their own weight. Zola's second novel, Thérèse Raquin, written as Manet prepared his "exposition particulière" at Place d'Alma, can be read, as Robert Lethbridge has noted, as something of a gloss on Olympia. The major tropes of his third novel, Madeleine Férat, are prostitution and slavery. Dedicated to Manet, it offered the painter yet another version of Olympia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.597 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".