ANIMAL SCULPTURE IN RUSSIAN ACADEMIC ART OF THE XIX — FIRST QUARTER OF THE XXI CENTURIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Анималистическая скульптура в русском искусстве отражает изменения в обществе, сочетает реализм с модернизмом. Мастера XIX в. создавали реалистичные образы животных, показывая их эмоциональную выразительность. В XX в. советские художники продолжили традицию анималистической скульптуры, применяя новаторские методы и материалы. Современные скульпторы продолжают развивать этот жанр, выражая уникальный взгляд на мир природы. В статье рассмотрены работы авторов, связанных с петербургской школой. The animalistic sculpture of Russian art reflects changes in society, combines realism with modernism. The masters of the XX century created realistic images of animals, showing their emotional expressiveness. In the XX century, Soviet artists continued the tradition of animalistic sculpture, using innovative methods and materials. Modern sculptors continue to develop this genre, expressing a unique view of the natural world. The article examines the artists of the St. Petersburg school.
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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".