Russian Bindings of the First Quarter of the 19th Century Made of Calfskin with Morocco Spines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of customized hand-printed bookbinding, the type and grade of materials used were directly related to the number of operations involved in processing the various elements of the binding and the quality of the decoration. More valuable leathers and fabrics were chosen for expensive and artistically decorated bindings. One way to create a luxury effect was to applique a strip of saffiano on the spine over less expensive calfskin. When on the bookshelf, such bindings looked as if they were made entirely of morocco. This article studies Russian bindings of the first quarter of the 19th century with smooth morocco spines. More than 130 such specimens have been found in the collection of the Research Department of Rare Books (Book Museum) of the Russian State Library (RSL). On the basis of the analysis of gold tooling stamps and their arrangement, two main types of spine decoration are identified: with a single vertically oriented composition of stamps and with a traditional bandage composition, i.e. with the division of the whole area of the spine into separate quadrangular sections with the help of horizontally arranged bands of ornament. The types of stamps and decorative techniques characteristic of certain chronological intervals within the period under study are described. The identified characteristics can be used to describe both full-leather and Russian quorter leather bindings, as well as to clarify dating.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".