Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bruno Bauer's first critical foray, in 1829, is an assessment of Kantian aesthetics from the perspective of Hegelian logic. His depiction of art as a manifestation of spirit and the already problematical relation of art and religion anticipate the development of his thought on infinite selfconsciousness in the 1840s. The central idea of the early manuscript, a Hegelian conception of the unity of thought and being, is the key to deciphering the complex and elusive meaning of Bauer's critical theory in the Vormärz . This text, adjudicated by Hegel and awarded the Prussian Royal Prize in Philosophy, had been deposited among Hegel's correspondence in the archives of the Humboldt-Universität, Berlin. Presumed lost, it was first published in 1996, in the original Latin, with German translation and commentary. It provides an important new perspective on Bauer's thinking. On August 3, 1828, the University of Berlin announced its annual Royal Prize competition. The question, set by Hegel, was this: Whether the principles of the doctrine of the beautiful are adequately expounded by Kant in that part of philosophy which he took to be the critique of judgement, and whether they are consistent with the bases upon which the entire philosophy of this author depends. The prize, awarded on August 3, 1829, was won by Bruno Bauer, who had submitted a ninety-five-page Latin manuscript, Dissertatio de pulchri principiis . Bauer was then a theology student at the University of Berlin, having enrolled in spring 1828; he was graduated in spring 1832.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".