MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404894155 · doi:10.17223/22220836/54/21

Attribution of old russian furniture in museums in the first quarter of the twentieth-first century

2024· article· en· W4404894155 on OpenAlex
Nаtalia V. Ugleva

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Kul turologiya i iskusstvovedenie · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Design, and Social History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)AttributionHistoryVisual artsArtAncient historyArchaeologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attribution of Old Russian furniture in museums begins in the first third of the twentieth century, and its active development continues in the next century. In 2000, a catalog for the exhibition “One Hundred and Twelve Chairs” was published. For the first time, it includes images of several ancient artifacts and their brief annotations. The next edition on the topic of interest to us was published in St. Petersburg in 2003. Its Old Russian section includes a selective bibliography and two articles in which information about furniture production from antiquity to the XVII centuries is presented in chronological order on the basis of information gleaned from literature, as well as specific monuments for the consideration of stage phenomena. In 2015, a book about the collection of furniture of the Hermitage appeared. The catalog part includes several ancient artifacts previously published in the second half of the twentieth century, without a radical revision of the old information. An example of the practical use of the method of complex research of the monument is the 2017 article by N.V. Ugleva about a retractable table. A detailed study of the monument made it possible to determine that it, like its direct analogues, were made not in the XVII– XVIII, as previously thought, but at the end of the XIX century. In 2018, a book was published dedicated to Russian painted chests, which includes furniture of the XVI–XVII centuries. The author analyzes its design and decor, suggests a new dating. In the same year, a collective monograph was published, about the phenomenon of domestic throne chairs. Two articles directly concern the topic of interest to us. In the first of them, “For Fear and Greatness”, the question of terminology is solved, the historical evolution of this type of ceremonial setting for official receptions in Russia has been traced since ancient times. The second article about Russian throne chairs [24]. For the first time, these monuments are considered as examples of stylistic art. The same algorithm of practical work with museum exhibits is reflected in the published report by N.V. Ugleva on the new attribution of the curule chair from the collection of the Historical Museum. Previously considered a model of the XVII century. On the basis of an art history analysis, it was ranked among the works of the last third of the XV – first third of the XVI centuries. The only foreign author who published Russian artifacts of the XVII century is D. Miller, who included two monuments from the Hermitage collection. In the XXI century, the development of the science of ancient Russian furniture has risen to a new stage, when doubts were expressed about the relevance of old dating and the idea of separating the ancient heritage into a separate zone of independent research is being viewed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.179 · 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