MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906515623 · doi:10.17401/lexicon.s.3-brodini

«La sua caduta fu miracolosa». Il crollo della torre del duomo vecchio di Brescia nel 1708

2023· article· en· W6906515623 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorence Research (University of Florence) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Religious Studies of Rome
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinterpretationTowerCircumstantial evidenceHistory of architectureMiddle AgesQuarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 5th March 1708 the tower over the entrance of the Duomo Vecchio in Brescia, also known as the Rotonda, collapsed ruinously, thus confirming the hearsay that for a long time had denounced the dangerous conditions of the ancient building. Erected at the same time as the cathedral during the second half of XI century, the Romanesque tower was about 56 meters high, and it housed three bells and probably also a treasury. However, over the centuries the building complex of the cathedral had undergone many changes: among the most significant those made to the tower by the architect Giovan Maria Piantavigna in 1571. As a result of the gradual raising of the street level, the medieval entrance became unusable, therefore Piantavigna was asked to open a new gate in medio turris. This work led to static problems and ultimately to the implosion of the tower, despite the attempts of the Venetian architect Andrea Tirali to reinforce it. Through the analysis of chronicles, archival records, and iconographic sources this essay aims to throw light on the reasons for the sixteenthcentury intervention, the early eighteenth-century restauration, and the causes of the final collapse of the tower.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.276
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorence Research (University of Florence)Same topicHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeFrench-language works237,207