Master of Madonna from Žebrák and the Sculpture ofthe Last Quarter of 14th Century.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(EN) The thesis focuses on twelve sculptures from the last quarter of the 14th century, more or less closely associated with the Madonna of Žebrák in the existing literature. Since the 1960s, the core of the group has been conceptualised as the production of one artist or one workshop, which immediately preceded and in many ways contributed to the formulation of the so-called beautiful style around 1400. More recent scholarship interprets the group more as a broader tendency, forming a kind of alternative to the first works of the beautiful style in the 1380s, existing parallel to them in mutual interaction. While the exclusive earliest beautiful Madonnas seem to have been created as a somewhat deliberately formulated pictorial type, actively reinterpreting the rich sculptural tradition of the third quarter of the century, the more conservatively oriented sculptures of the Žebrák Madonna circle tend to build on the earlier work. The sculptors worked inventively with various stimuli brought by the dynamic and artistically fertile environment of Prague. The surprisingly wide style range of this group finds its sources and comparisons in the various positions of Parléř's cathedral sculpture and carving, the marlstone (opuka) madonnas and especially the horizontal pietas; a certain continuity with the...
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".