Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of Byzantine sculpture in Greece made significant progress during the first quarter of the twenty-first century. The beginning of this period was marked by the first international conference on this subject, held in Athens in 2000, as well as by several monographs published by Greek scholars, which sparked renewed interest in the field. Greece is quite rich in sculptural material, much of which is still waiting to be studied and published. This renewed research interest is mainly expressed in a series of publications of new material. Monographs, doctoral dissertations, and articles by Greek and foreign scholars have provided a large amount of new data covering various chronological periods and geographical areas of the country. The general trend in this activity is to offer well-documented groups and catalogues of sculptures, while there are fewer integrative works. What is missing from this production is interdisciplinary approaches and, in particular, laboratory analysis of the origin of marble and other stones used in sculpture. Meanwhile, during the last quarter of the century, the Greek Ministry of Culture changed its attitude towards Byzantine sculpture. Two new museum collections dedicated to this art were inaugurated in Arta and Chalkida, while many works of sculpture were incorporated into new thematic Byzantine museums and archaeological museums throughout the country. In line with this policy, Byzantine sculptures are no longer neglected and overlooked in the gardens and storerooms of museums and archaeological sites, but play an important role in the narrative of permanent exhibitions. Future challenges include documenting the hundreds of spolia scattered throughout the country, further studying unpublished material, interdisciplinary approaches, and further measures to protect sculptures that are still exposed outdoors and suffer from erosion and other dangers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".