Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on the visual arts in the English Renaissance, which largely tracks the reigns of the Tudor and Jacobean monarchs, was, until the 1990s, heavily focused on portraiture. An important and comprehensive catalogue of Tudor portraits in the National Portrait Gallery was produced by Roy Strong (Strong 1969b, cited under Portraiture). The Tudor period was traditionally treated by art historians as a prologue to an identifiable British style that emerged only in the seventeenth, and even eighteenth, century. Gradually, a new generation of scholars began producing close examinations of different media: architecture, tapestries, funeral monuments, portrait miniatures, and gardens, as well as a wider range of paintings and portraits, extending to those of the middle classes. These examinations were rooted in documentary evidence and enlivened especially the study of the visual arts in the reign of Henry VIII. Milestone anniversaries, such as the five hundredth anniversary of Henry VIII’s birth, in 1991, and the quincentenary anniversary of his accession to the throne, celebrated in 2009, contributed to a growing number of scholarly monographs, exhibitions and their catalogues, and edited volumes based on academic conferences devoted to the study of Tudor visual art. This field has taken the lead in technical analysis of works of art. The five-year Making Art in Tudor Britain project, led by Tarnya Cooper, then at the National Portrait Gallery in London, pioneered the focused study and comparative findings of more than one hundred English Renaissance paintings through the use of the latest technologies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.002 |
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".