MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396665350 · doi:10.32920/25758120.v1

Scientific Study of the Origin of the Painting from the Early 20th Century Leads to Pablo Picasso

2024· preprint· en· W4396665350 on OpenAlexafffund
Marica Bakovic, Slobodanka Karapandza, Sajed Mcheik, Ana Pejović‐Milić

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPICASSOPaintingArtArt historyWhite (mutation)Visual artsPalette (painting)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study applied multiple scientific approaches to establish the significance of an old work of art, Red Guitar, by examining its historical origin and the color materials used in its creation. Additionally, the study provides thus far unknown pieces of Olga Picasso’s family history to be added to her biography. Scientific approaches included digital X-ray radiography, X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and elemental thermal conductivity analysis. This combination of techniques provided a broad confirmation as to when the painting was created. The artwork includes colors (white, black, blue, yellow, green, red, and brown/red) and prevalent use of lead- and iron-based historic pigments—chrome yellow, yellow ochre, and red ochre. It also documents the use of unconventional materials, such as the colorant Pigment Red 4, and nitrocellulose. This investigation led to the conclusion that the artwork, Red Guitar, is authentic and in accordance with Picasso’s work during the first two decades of the 20th century.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207