MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The origin of the icon of the Mother of God of Tenderness of the second quarter of the 13th century and the history of its existence in Belozersk

2024· article· en· W4405576594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irina A. Shalina

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Russian Medieval Art Department · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Religious Studies of Rome
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconQuarter (Canadian coin)HonorPaintingInheritance (genetic algorithm)Style (visual arts)HistoryPeriod (music)State (computer science)MartyrAncient historyArtClassicsLiteratureArt historyAestheticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large icon of the Mother of God of Tenderness, taken to the State Russian Museum in 1931 from the iconostasis of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Belozersk, was recorded there in descriptions of local historical sources at the beginning of the 17th century, and judging by them, was a honor city image. There was no doubt about its original from this northern center, which largely determined the prevailing opinion about the nature of the artistic style of the work. Belozersk has long belonged to the Rostov princes, and in 1238 it became a separate principality, becoming the inheritance of the younger prince Gleb Vasilkovich (1237–1279). The appearance of a monumental image of the Mother of God here was associated with this event. However, the work, as a thorough study of the painting shows, belongs to the work of a Novgorod master, which significantly changes existing ideas. In our opinion, the image of the Mother of God of Tenderness of the second quarter of the 13th century, as well as a slightly earlier image of the apostles Peter and Paul (State Russian Museum), ended up in Belozersk only at the end of the 15th century, and in ancient times they were painted for one of the large Novgorod churches.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Russian Medieval Art DepartmentSame topicHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeFrench-language works237,207