MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018009317 · doi:10.7202/044680ar

Reflections on the Pragmatics of the Illustrated Perspective Treatise

2010· article· en· W2018009317 on OpenAlex
Eduardo Ralickas

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniques · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Aesthetics, and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Literal and figurative languagePragmaticsContradictionUnconscious mindRepresentation (politics)EpistemologyLinguisticsField (mathematics)GriceGermanCognitive sciencePhilosophyComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay reconsiders visual demonstrations contained in a selection of illustrated perspective treatises. Based on a fundamental distinction made in the field of pragmatics, the author argues that the images designed to demonstrate/teach/instantiate the perspectival system are plagued by a contradiction between the conceptual “content” of perspective and the figurative means deployed to display such content. In all cases, this aporia, which defines the teaching of perspective by means of images, arises when the figurative discourse of perspective attempts to integrate a representation of its user within the system itself. In closing, the author suggests that the perspective treatise’s “pragmatic unconscious” allows one to shed new light on the pictorial innovations of German romanticism, particularly in the work of Caspar David Friedrich, which is tied to fundamental (and hitherto unforeseen) ways to the “failures” of the classical age.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.266 · 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