Bibliographic record
Abstract
Still life representation from sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, either in paintings or as decorative motifs, has diverse ideological approaches. This genre appears in two different geographical regions both within these centuries contemporary to each other: Europe and South Asia. The research focuses on the novel idea of creating an analogy between the connotations beheld by both European and Mughal still life objects in visual portrayal. Still life painting emerged with a religious and moral approach in sixteenth century Europe as a result of Protestant Reformation. While in South Asia during the Mughal rule, it originated as a foreign decorative element from Persia, where it had symbolic associations for the terrestrial and celestial life. The noble ideology of both the European and Islamic still life gradually shifted towards a materialistic approach, under the influence of respective patronage during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The lack of scholarship on the subject matter inspired this study, which will contribute to elaborate how this genre has evolved to embody diverse concepts. The analytical study on the representation of still life in both European painting and Islamic decoration under the Mughals, based on the formal qualities and corresponding ideologies will be a valuable perspective for existing art historical scholarship. Not only will the research be beneficial in studying the genre but will also create a holistic view of the changing thought perspective globally during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries.
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) | 0.998 | 0.983 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".