MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386500120 · doi:10.5117/9789463728461_ch05

The Fake Past: Forgeries and Souvenirs

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386500120 on OpenAlexaff
Penny Van Esterik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepatriationArtTourismPotteryVisual artsHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores the production of fakes and forgeries of Ban Chiang painted pottery by talented and not-so-talented artists in the seventies and eighties and how selling fake antiquities affects the antiquities market, drawing on what we know about forgery in European art. I propose a classification of replicated Ban Chiang designs from fraudulent forgeries to tourist souvenirs, sometimes recognizable from symmetry mistakes. The chapter includes the role of museums in the collection and display of real and forged artifacts and the complexities of repatriation when current owners of antiquities try to send their artifacts, including pots, home.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicArt History and Market AnalysisFrench-language works237,207