Bibliographic record
Abstract
The beautiful is the symbol of the morally good, and … only in this respect … does it please with a claim to the assent of everyone else. Immanuel Kant To examine connections among language, art, and aesthetic validity, one must revisit Kant: the roots to contemporary debates about artistic truth lie in Kant's aesthetics. Kant recognizes that validity encompasses more than propositional truth. He considers validity to be multidimensional. In distinguishing aesthetic validity (“beauty”) from epistemic validity (“truth”) and moral validity (“goodness” or “rightness”), however, Kant gives an ambiguous account. On the one hand, he demarcates an unusual zone of experience and activity where imaginative cognition and creative conduct can occur. He emphasizes an irreducible dimension of valid aesthetic judgment and, by extension, of aesthetic experience and aesthetic objects. And he defines the fine arts with reference to this dimension, as those areas of production and reception in which “aesthetic ideas” and “taste” prevail. On the other hand, Kant's descriptions of this zone untether it from his usual anchors of validity, namely, intellectual concepts and rational ideas. Hence aesthetic experience and activity, as aesthetic, are neither theoretical nor practical and are not fully constituted in a Kantian sense. His account of the subjective universality and exemplary necessity of taste judgments reflects this untethering, as does his account of the beautiful as purposiveness without purpose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".