Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, scattered pages of the coloured version of Huangchao liqi tushi have been found in several public institutions outside China and even on the art market. The discovery of pages bearing the Yuanmingyuan seal has led to them being associated with the looting of Yuanmingyuan in 1860. However, as commonly encountered in provenance research, a thorough analysis of the available archives indicates that portions of pages held in various institutions were acquired from unrelated individuals or dealers at different times, without substantial evidence linking them directly to the looting of Yuanmingyuan or to soldiers involved in the looting. Consequently, it is not possible to definitively establish their Yuanmingyuan provenance. Facing these challenges, this study employs methods beyond the traditional archival research approach, demonstrating how additional insights can be derived from checking indirect archives and marks on the reverse of pages. More importantly, the study showcases how an art historical understanding of the material can offer new perspectives, shifting the focus from searching for provenance documents of individual portions to connecting portions without records to those with more solid evidence, considering the possibility that direct provenance records may never have existed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".