La historia del (no) retrato de Ausiàs March
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La tabla de san Sebastián de la Colegiata de Xàtiva ha sido, y es, considerada el retrato de Ausiàs March. Esta opinión está muy arraigada a pesar de que ya hay quién se ha encargado de desmentirla. En el presente artículo se presentan los argumentos históricos que evidencian una falsedad que se ha perpetuado al menos desde el segundo cuarto del siglo XX. Se exponen los fundamentos historiográficos, se analiza la iconografía de la tabla en relación con otras obras del artista y se revisa el concepto de retrato en la baja Edad Media. Saints Sebastian's table of Xàtiva's Colegiata has been, and is, considered Ausiàs March's portrait. This belief is very rooted despite it has already been refuted. The aim of this paper is to present more historical arguments in order to deny a falseness which is perpetuated since the second quarter of the 20th century at least. It exposes the historiographical basis, analyzes the iconograpfhy of the table in relation to others artist's artworks and looks over the concept of portrait in late Middle Ages.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".