Osservazioni sulla produttività del âbuioâ romanico: la finestra e la luce nellâarchitettura religiosa dellâarco sud-alpino
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from the realization – apparently taken for granted – of the darkness of some Romanesque churches, we investigate the possibilities and valences, both aesthetic and semantic, of the purposeful deployment of illumination into the interior of sacred space according to both the specific “direction” of daylight, and the revaluation of the effects of artificial illumination by means of oil lamps or candles. This essay concentrates on the window as indicator of the events of a microhistory of light in architecture. In a kind of close reading, we attempt to examine the diverse forms of an “economy of luminosity” determined by the arrangement, morphology, and transformations of the individual apertures of three churches of the Alpine foothill region of Lombardy from the 11th to the 12th century. Alongside techniques of directing the light into the churches’ interiors, we consider interventions towards the exclusion of daylight from sacred spaces. Until the last quarter of the Cinquecento, there does not seem to have been any need to attend to the apertures in order to augment their illumination. Only with post-Tridentine Reform and upon the publications of the Instructiones of Carlo Borromeo in 1577 was illumination increased by means of opening large oculi and windows, which the restoration campaigns of the 19th and 20th centuries have later obliterated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".