Art contemporain : questions nouvelles pour l’esthétique philosophique ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un essai récent de Rochlitz s'inscrit dans le débat actuel sur l'art contemporain en s'efforçant légitimement de rétablir le spectateur dans son droit au jugement. Ce faisant, il propose des critères de reconnaissance et d'appréciation de l'oeuvre qui prétendent, entre autres, échapper aux limites de l'esthétique kantienne qualifiée de subjectiviste. En évoquant des tentatives, analytique (Margolis) et phénoménologique (Gadamer), de traiter de l'oeuvre contemporaine, et en les confrontant aux critères avancés par Rochlitz, on cherche à mettre en évidence les échos kantiens communs à toutes ces approches pour appeler à éviter les interprétations trop étroites de la troisième Critique, et montrer qu'elle nourrit le questionnement sur l'art d'aujourd'hui et peut encore ouvrir des pistes fructueuses à cet égard.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".