Le retable des Féries de la collégiale Sainte-Waudru. Critique d’authenticité d’une œuvre monumentale de l’atelier des Borman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le retable des Féries, daté du xvie siècle, a fait l’objet d’études menées par quelques spécialistes ces cinquante dernières années, sans pour autant fournir suffisamment d’informations quant à l’authenticité de cette œuvre partiellement restaurée entre 1897 et 1905-1906. À travers cet article, nous souhaitons mettre au service des chercheurs nos résultats issus d’une longue étude in situ, réalisée dans le cadre de notre mémoire de master en histoire de l’art. Ces recherches nous permettent aujourd’hui de différencier les parties et les matériaux d’origine de ceux des xixe et xxe siècles, de distinguer précisément la contribution des deux restaurateurs et de déceler quelques traces de polychromie. Nos constatations ont notamment été l’occasion d’émettre des hypothèses sur leur méthodologie de travail et de questionner leur tendance interventionniste, influencée par une recherche d’idéalisation de l’art gothique caractéristique de leur époque.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".