MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Printmaking

2023· reference-entry· en· W4377820801 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evelyn Lincoln

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2023
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrintmakingWoodcutPaintingArtVisual artsSubject (documents)PublishingStained glassArt historyLibrary scienceLiteratureComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of printmaking is unwieldy to thematize because pictures were necessary components of so many aspects of medieval life when prints appeared in 15th-century Europe. Printed pictures were interchanged with handmade images as pilgrimage souvenirs, the focus of prayer, decoration, manuscript illustration, workshop models, and other situations requiring images. With the development of moveable type, single-sheet woodblock prints, available on fabric and paper, were used for book illustration; maps were collected into atlases; print publishing, printmaking, and print selling flourished; and collecting was encouraged by the publication of print series and pre-compiled albums. Printmaking required access to prepared hardwood blocks and copper plates, specialized tools and training, presses, paper, and labor. Print distribution required publishers, booksellers, and eventually the legal protection of investments through a privilege system. New ways of distributing responsibility for authorship emerged during the Inquisition with print censorship. An active patronage system was adapted to conventions of dedication and rededication as matrices survived their original patronage networks. Prints were rarely the subject of academic research before the twentieth century unless they reflected designs by renowned painters, such as Mantegna, Dürer, Rubens, or Rembrandt. Much of the early writing about prints focused on these recognized masters. The definition of an original print relied on Bartsch’s 19th-century category of peintre-graveurs, artists whose original inventions were registered in the form of prints. Since few painters learned printmaking techniques with the skill of specialized craftspeople, Bartsch’s distinction muddied the question of what an original print is today, also preventing historians from understanding how to value the contribution of the painters, goldsmiths, embroiderers, and cartographers for whom the distinction was irrelevant. In the modern era, early private print collections entered museums, making curators the first interpreters of prints. The encyclopedic Illustrated Bartsch, the New Hollstein, and digitized censuses of prints and their matrices are ongoing projects allowing us to understand better how integral copying and republishing was to the development of printmaking. Scholars studying the role of prints in ritual practice, career formation, theology, medicine, commerce, travel, colonization, and the geographic imagination engaged new opportunities offered by digital cataloguing. The material turn in print studies fruitfully combined the work of academic historians, curators, and conservators who had the most intimate knowledge of prints, showing how the three branches of study demonstrating how printed pictures shaped and were shaped by the aesthetic, social, and material circumstances of early modern life.

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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicArt History and Market AnalysisFrench-language works237,207