Juan Fernández el Labrador, Miguel de Pret y la "construcción" de la naturaleza muerta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEntre marzo y junio de 2013 el Museo del Prado albergo una exposicion monografica dedicada a uno de los bodegonistas espanoles mas enigmaticos del siglo XVII, Juan Fernandez, llamado el Labrador. Con motivo de la muestra se procedio al estudio tecnico de todas las obras expuestas, aprovechando la circunstancia de haber reunido un importante numero de obras de diferentes procedencias. El presente articulo recoge los resultados obtenidos y las conclusiones a las que se ha llegado tras la investigacion. Con ello, se abre una nueva via para el debate del genero del bodegon en el siglo XVII y se perfila la figura de dos artistas de enorme interes en este contexto: Juan Fernandez el Labrador y el practicamente desconocido Miguel de Pret. EnglishIn 2013 (March-June) the Museo del Prado held a monographic exhibition dedicated to one of the most enigmatic Spanish still-life painters of the seventeenth century, Juan Fernandez el Labrador. Afterwards all the paintings exhibited in the show were technically examined. This article presents the results of these studies and the conclusions reached after the research. It opens new perspectives on seventeenth-century still-life paintings based on new information on two important artists: Juan Fernamdez el Labrador and the up until now practically unknown Miguel de Pret.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".