Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aestheticist philosophy of the late nineteenth century effectively countered a gradual but pervasive cultural degradation of language by revaluing the concept of action for art. Oscar Wilde, the most well-known exemplar of aestheticism in Britain, noted that "action belong[ed] to the sphere of ethics", but would deny it a place in art for that very reason. For Wilde, in true dandiacal spirit, the less practical the action, the more artistic and, paradoxically, the more utilitarian it would be. He wholeheartedly suggested that art itself was the better for being divorced from practical action: "Action! What is action? It dies at the moment of its energy. It is a base concession to fact. The world is made by the singer for the dreamer". Likewise, Havelock Ellis wrote of the "artist for art's sake" that "in turning aside from the common utilitarian aims of men [hel is really engaged in a task none other can perform, of immense utility to men". Thus aestheticism was patently concerned, if only in a negative way, with the concept of action. Rather than severing the link between action and utility (which always carried with it the nuance, at least, of physical or political enactment), Wilde and other aesthetes simply dislodged action from its strong association with the physical body, its labor, and its products. From this perspective, the best actions were the rarefied products of the imagination. For Wilde, literature in particular distinguished itself as the imaginative act par excellence.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".