Bibliographic record
Abstract
The certainty Kant associates with this 'felt' sensation of pleasure and, thus, the certitude (albeit contested) of the aesthetic judgement that it underpins is a hallmark of his aesthetics. Conversely, Hegel begins his Phenomenology with 'sense certainty,' the contingency of which he is keen to expose from the philosopher's perspective of Absolute knowledge.
 
 Having established the above dialectic of sense-certainty and contingency, the paper will proceed by claiming that both of these accounts of the aesthetic (one positive, one negative) have much to offer the study of improvisation. The following is indicative content:
 
 • A shift away from a concept of improvisation understood as a response to or celebration of uncertainty and the unforeseeable. Replaced by a situation where the improviser knows what is going to happen while also being hyper-aware of its contingency.
 
 • An emphasis on the singular certainty of improvisation, which (in demanding consensus) initiates a collective reflective process of contestation: improvisation par excellence.
 
 • A recognition that the contingency of this 'this' and this 'now', far from undermining, actually intensifies the commitment to what is 'there and available', an intensity that is responsible for the infinite unconcealment of the given.
 
 • A challenge to the linear model of improvisation in the name of a perspective that emphasises the simultaneity of contingent com-possible worlds, where agility and ironic knowingness replace innovation and novelty as guiding principles.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".