Architectural Motifs in Jewellery Art of the 20th — the First Quarter of the 21st Century
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the history of jewellery, craftspeople have appealed to architectural motifs in the composition of church utensils or jewellery. In different historical periods, this process developed in accordance with the aesthetic requirements of the time, the peculiarities of the artistic and stylistic development of art in general and jewellery in particular. As a result, a number of certain artistic techniques have been formed; they were used by masters in past eras and are used by modern artists and jewellers, as well as architects and designers working in this field of decorative art. This article is devoted to the analysis of the formation and development of these artistic and stylistic techniques at the present stage. This topic has not yet been adequately reflected in scientific literature. The research problem is only mentioned in general works of foreign and Russian researchers on various historical periods (to a greater or lesser extent). Most interest in the topic is shown by bloggers who popularize certain brands or master jewellers in various electronic resources. In the first quarter of the 21st century, the appeal to architectural motifs as a key element of artistic, figurative, and compositional solutions in jewellery became very widespread both in the luxury segment and in the author’s jewellery art. This article is the first experience of art criticism research on this artistic and stylistic phenomenon. The research uses descriptive, formal, stylistic, and comparative methods. As a result, the author of the article identifies and formulates the main methods of using architectural motifs in the compositional, artistic, and figurative solutions in works of modern author’s jewellery art.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it