MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412428527 · doi:10.3138/flor-2022-1002

“Truly Splendid and Magnificent”: Marriage Feasts in Fifteenth-Century Tuscan Domestic Paintings

2025· article· en· W4412428527 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Allison Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFifteenthPaintingArtAncient historyArt historyHistoryClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elite marriage celebrations in Tuscany during the fifteenth century consisted of elaborate, public suites of events that included parades, spectacles, jousts, musical interludes, and, above all, sumptuous banquets. As part of the nuptial festivities, wealthy families also commissioned artists to create cassoni wedding chests to transport the bride’s dowry to her new home. These luxurious furnishings often portrayed secular and mythological themes, including images of wedding banquets that paralleled the actual feasts. Not only did these fictive meals reflect late medieval traditions of courtly love, they highlighted how food culture commemorated civic and familial values during the late fifteenth-century. Although descriptions of wedding celebrations survive in diaries, orations, and epistolary sources, images of nuptial feasts and the food they portray have been overlooked by scholars. This paper expands our knowledge of foodways by exploring examples of nuptial furniture depicting imaginative meals. In this consideration, the illustrated meals will be evaluated in the cultural context in which the objects were created, with special attention paid to the foods and dishes depicted. By analyzing a series of nuptial feast scenes on cassoni, this article reconciles the patrons’ desires to project civic virtues with developing trends in food and art in central Italy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207