Envisioning Abstraction: The Simultaneity of Robert Delaunay's<i>First Disk</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe First Disk of 1913 marks the culmination of Robert Delaunay's pioneering move into full abstraction following his break with Cubism in 1912. Having rejected Cubism's insistence on the conceptual (what we know of an object) over the perceptual (how we see an object), Delaunay sought to ground painting in a reformulated understanding of vision consistent with modern optical theory. From his 1912 Window series to The First Disk, Delaunay's paintings articulate a model of vision in which knowledge and sensation necessarily cooperate in the act of viewing—ultimately demanding that the viewer literally learn how to see. Additional informationNotes on contributorsGordon HughesGordon Hughes is the 2006–8 postdoctoral fellow in art history at Rice University. He received his doctorate from Princeton University, a master's from the Center for the Study of Theory and Criticism at the University of Western Ontario, and a master's in fine art from the University of Illinois, Chicago [Department of Art History, Rice University, PO Box 1892, 103 Herring Hall, MS-21, 6100 Main St., Houston, Tex. 77251–1892, GAH@rice.edu].
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".