MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098028618

PRIMITIVE FORMS AND FIGURES IN ÇANAKKALE

2016· article· en· W7098028618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistory and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPrehistoryQuarter (Canadian coin)Subject (documents)Period (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ottoman art of ceramic production extending from the 14th to 20th century nurtured from three centres such as İznik, Kütahya, and Çanakkale. Çanakkale, one of these centres, as compared to others, is distinguished from others through the primitive attitude in technique, form and designs, which is considered as “folk art”. Animal shaped forms such as lion, horse, camel and kangaroo in the traditional Çanakkale ceramics from the end of the 18th century to the first quarter of the 20th century fulfilled functions such as trinkets, box or candy box, or ashtray. The disproportion of these ceramics can sometimes be attributed to the practical attitude of the craftsmen, and sometimes to their wish to give a “funny ” impression. On the other hand, as in many products of folk art, it is possible to observe forms and designs from prehistoric ages extending to the 20th century in Çanakkale ceramics. This surprising continuity can be explained by referring to the fact that production, independent of the “official ” art of the period, continued by transfer from the master to the apprentice, without feeling the historical obligation. In this article, we will introduce interesting examples of past forms and designs in Çanakkale ceramics

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207