Painting Apragopolis: Foreign Painters on Capri: 1826 - 1890 \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the popular imagination, there are few geographic locations which may be argued to hold as great or as emotionally powerful a mystique as the island of Capri, now a constituent of the Republic of Italy, and now, also, a site perhaps most popularly familiar within the outside world as a modern and internationally popular summer tourist resort. Most commonly, the island would appear to be regarded either on account of the prominence of its natural beauty, which boasts not only a dramatic variety of scenery, but also an abundance of rare plants and flowers, or, by contrast, for its place in the annals of ancient history, and specifically, for having once served as the private retreat of two Roman emperors, Augustus and Tiberius. \n\tBut although some histories of Capri appear to be well-known, to scholars and tourists alike, the island’s seemingly equally remarkable place in the history of nineteenth-century painting would seem to remain, alas, largely overlooked. Perhaps on account of its connections to ancient cultures, perhaps on account of its geographic isolation, or, simply, perhaps on account of the fact that Capri is for many valid reasons an inherently enjoyable place to be, the “art-history” of Capri, especially beginning in the second quarter of nineteenth century, might be retrieved from obscurity as one of the most fascinating and internationally diverse art-historical movements to have taken place over the course of the nineteenth century. Over the course of five essays, therefore, this thesis seeks to understand Capri as a site of major interest to visual artists over the course of much of the nineteenth century. \n
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.007 |
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".