L’oratorio della Madonna del Vivaio a Scarperia, Firenze. Il problema del cedimento del suolo e gli interventi di restauro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The architect Alessandro Galilei carried out the project of the Madonna del Vivaio on behalf of Gian Gastone, the last Grand Duke of Tuscany of the Medici dynasty. The building is characterised by a circular plan with a stretch of straight wall in the entrance side, while in the opposite one and in the transverse axis there are rectangular rooms, the apse and two chapels.\nThe construction works of the Oratory were made in the second quarter of the eighteenth century. Because of the structural problems linked to the instability of the ground in which the Oratory stood, since 1832 first reports were drawn up. They formulated the first diagnosis, but the cracks later continued and a number of interventions were still needed, up to those of recent years that finally appear to be effective.\nThe paper examines the long period in which the structural problems of the Oratory occurred and the numerous restorations performed on several occasions. It highlights how, within a very complex issue such as the instability of the ground, the approach to the restoration of the Oratory of the Madonna del Vivaio over time has evolved through a more detailed and consistent relationship between assessment, diagnosis and intervention.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".