Bibliographic record
Abstract
The story of the development of modern Japanese painting is usually told as a dual progression of the nihonga (Japanese-style painting) and yoga (Western-style painting, primarily known as oil painting). This paper will argue that for the period around the first quarter of the twentieth century, the Japanese watercolour movement played its role as the third force in modern Japanese painting. In Japan as in most other countries, watercolour painting was regarded as a second-class citizen. However, the Japanese watercolour movement showed three distinct characteristics that marked it as separate from the mainstream oil painters in Japan: first, they had an untiring and charismatic leader in Ōshita Tōjirō; second, they published a major art journal, Mizue, to express and disseminate their somewhat exclusivist ideas; finally, they had their own educational institution in Suisaiga Kenkyūjo. Among others, there are four main achievements which highlight their contributions to modern Japanese painting: first, for the Japanese watercolourists Britain and not France was the Mecca of watercolour and provided the ideal artistic environment to express modern landscape painting; second, they were pioneers of modern Japanese landscape painting; third, they established watercolour painting as a distinct artistic category in Japan; finally, they contributed to the democratization of the art of painting in Japan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".