Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates late eleventh- and twelfth-century architecture in England and Wales from five interrelated points. First, it considers the appropriation of Roman sites for buildings of the post-1066 Norman administration. Second, it examines the creation of an architectural iconography in which there are associations with Imperial Rome. Third, there is the matter of scale, the desire to build big after many centuries of little or no tradition of constructing large edifices. Fourth, it explores the acquisition of a practical understanding of the building technology required for erecting large buildings. Fifth, it looks into the vocabulary of architectural articulation, the use of marble, and aspects of stone sculpture inherited from antiquity and appropriate to the monumentality of the new architecture. It references specific buildings, such as the Constantinian Basilica of Old St Peter’s in Rome, through the adaptation of triumphal arches down to details such as chip carving, marble, and the reuse and recreation of Roman bricks. Of the many large-scale buildings built by the Normans, a more detailed examination is devoted to the White Tower in London, castles at Colchester and Castle Rising, Winchester and Durham cathedrals, and the former abbey churches of Tewkesbury and Gloucester. It investigates the application of principles of the first-century BCE Roman architect and engineer, Vitruvius, the author of De architectura.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".