MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132406956

Interpretation of XRF spectral imaging data using unsupervised machine learning:an investigation into Jusepe de Ribera's Onuphrius the Hermit and its underlying composition

2022· article· en· W7132406956 on OpenAlexaff
Annette Suleika Ortiz Miranda, Gianluca Pastorelli, Anne Haack Christensen, Loa Ludvigsen, Lisbeth Tarp

Bibliographic record

VenueMinistry of Culture Research Portal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposition (language)DepictionPalette (painting)PhotographyInterpretation (philosophy)Rendering (computer graphics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jusepe de Ribera (1591 – 1652) painted the composition Onuphrius the Hermit during the Counter-Reformation period of Naples, when specific religious themes were encouraged and depictions of penitent, suffering saints were regularly produced in Ribera’s workshop [1]. In this painting, Saint Onuphrius is represented with great intensity and extreme realism. The Saint, who chose to live as a hermit in the Egyptian desert, is painted with his hands joined, glancing upwards in prayer. His grey hair and beard, and his emaciated torso reflect his life of struggle and deprivation. Anatomical details are depicted with vibrant brush strokes together with the rendering of intense light, creating an image of reality and extreme spirituality. Multiple versions of this composition exist and a version painted on an oak panel was acquired for the Royal Danish Collection in 1764. When this work was X-radiographed for the first time in 1984, an entirely different composition was discovered below the surface [2]. Turned 90 degrees counter clockwise to a landscape orientation, the underlying composition shows a depiction of the Flight of the Holy Family into Egypt. This first and now hidden composition was likely painted with bright tints of blue, green and red mixed with lead white, while the monochromatic palette of the upper composition mostly contains dense layers of lead white in the figure surrounded by a dark background, which prevent a clear view of the hidden work in the X-radiograph. <br/>A clearer understanding and dating of the underlying composition required determination of which pigments comprised the palettes of the surface versus the hidden motif. Macro-X-ray fluorescence (MA-XRF) spectroscopy was selected as the key non-invasive analytical technique due to its ability to yield chemical information at the elemental level. Moreover, being a scanning method that produces full chemical distribution images, MA-XRF spectroscopy enabled an optimal understanding of the full suite of pigments across the painting in both compositions. MA-XRF elemental mapping was performed at the Conservation and Art Technological Studies (CATS) laboratory of the National Gallery of Denmark (SMK) using the Bruker CRONO system, which has a motorized stage designed to collect chemical distributions across large painted surfaces.<br/>XRF data maps were overlaid onto the X-radiograph and complementary multispectral images to better visualize the hidden painting. A combination of unsupervised machine learning methods based on neural networks [3,4] was used to automatically reduce the XRF spectral imaging data to a set of distinct clusters that share similar spectra, making it possible to identify materials more precisely and deduce the paint sequence. The interpretation was confirmed by additional scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) measurements of paint cross sections. Finally, the chemical characterization of the materials together with iconographic research and dendrochronology helped determine the time of execution and the relation between the two compositions in terms of their period of execution.<br/> <br/>[1] E. A. Perez Sanchez, N. Spinoza, Jusepe de Ribera, 1591 – 1652, 1992, 39 – 49. <br/>[2] H. Bjerre, Restoration pictures: an exhibition on the preservation and study of old art, ca. no. 13, 1984, 36 - 37.<br/>[3] Kogou S., Lee L., Shahtahmassebi G., Liang H., X‐Ray Spectrometry, 50(4), 2021, 310-319.<br/>[4] J. T. Machado, A. M. Lopes, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 65, 2019, 614-626.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinistry of Culture Research PortalSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207