MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116047303 · doi:10.71475/wkk.2013.1.111288

Zur Dresdner Armbrustmacherfamilie Hänisch und ihren „Zunftgenossen“

2025· article· de· W7116047303 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMetallurgy and Cultural Artifacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaroqueCraftQuarter (Canadian coin)WifePeriod (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The craft of the crossbow makers is shrouded in mystery. Today copyists fail in the attempt to achieve the quality of the old originals. The members of the Dresden Hänisch family were famous representatives of this profession. Since the 16th century they served as crossbow makers for the Electors and Kings of Saxony. For example Johann Gottfried Hänisch the Elder (1696 - 1778) was employed by Augustus the Strong. His signature was „IGH“. In the 64th Hermann Historica auction a crossbow (lot no. 2465) was sold, which is very meaningful in terms of the family tradition of Haenisch. This weapon with its „IGH“ signature apparently was made in the first quarter of the 18th century (fig. 1, 2). It shows features that appear also on Hänisch-crossbows of later production. These are the gilded bridle and the green pompons (their colors refered to the Wettin arms) and the grotesque masks around the channels for the pricker on the top and at the bottom of the tiller. A special feature of the above mentioned crossbow is that its decorative design refers to at least 100 years earlier forms. So this Baroque crossbow documents a family tradition in an unique way. Johann Friedrich Hänisch the Younger (1780 - 1836) was a grandson of the well-known Johann Gottfried Hänisch. He learned the profession of a gunsmith in his native town and served for the Saxon rulers. He was responsible for the care of the weapons of the Royal Arms Gallery, among them the crossbows. He died on 15th December 1836 in Dresden. The inventory of his estate gives an impression of the tools which were necessary for his craft. For comparison also the workshop inventory of the Leipzig crossbow maker Johann Heinrich Oelckers (1767 or 1768 - 1827) is cited in the article and one of his crossbows is depicted on fig. 3. After the inventory he could craft new crossbows completely. He was able to forge steelbows, to make tillers, locks, strings, bolts and so on. His successor, also from Leipzig, was Ferdinand Tell (1798 – 1863). In his letters he mentioned the adjusting procedure of crossbows. The same is to see on fig. 4, where the crossbow maker Oechslin from Schaffhausen is shooting an old crossbow in 1874. Ferdinand Tells rival was Johann Friedrich Rothe (1802 – 1833) from Leipzig. Beside strings and others Rothe offered bows of refined steel. Tell and Rothe were learnt wood turners and mechanics. They also traded with old crossbows. The craft of crossbow makers was free and in the German speaking countries apparently crossbow maker guilds didn't exist after the late Middle Ages. In the article some examples are given for craftsmen of other professions like smithes and textil-workers, who served as crossbowmakers in the 18th century. One example is the gunmaker Georg Friedrich Wolff in Freiberg/Saxony, who made a crossbow („Schnepper“) in late Baroque style (fig. 5).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.054

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.311 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicMetallurgy and Cultural ArtifactsFrench-language works237,207