MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010764843 · doi:10.1111/0021-8529.00014

The Conceptual Dimension in Art and the Modern Theory of Artistic Value

2001· article· en· W2010764843 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisnomerTheory of artNothingAestheticsArt methodologyArtValue (mathematics)The artsModern artDimension (graph theory)PerceptionAbstract artContemporary artEpistemologyArt historyPhilosophyVisual artsPaintingMathematicsPerformance art

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of Marcel Duchamp's readymades on the philosophy of art has been out of all proportion to the interest of the objects themselves-as indeed it should be for these ur-instances of what has come to be called conceptual art. These works and their progeny inspired a radical questioning of traditional art theory, and the resulting revolution consisted of three main theoretical events. First, given that there was nothing especially worth seeing in these art objects, the necessity of the perceptual to the arts was eliminated and its centrality challenged, thus making the conventional term for art theory, aesthetics, a serious misnomer:

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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