Bibliographic record
Abstract
What do we mean by the aesthetic? And to what should aesthetic theory apply? These seemingly basic questions shape Arnold Berleant’s recent collection of essays. Berleant’s text does exactly as his title suggests: the cornucopian selection of essays traces his aesthetic thought from its origins in the arts, through the rise of environmental aesthetics, and to his current preoccupation with the ethical obligations of aesthetic theory. While the text does not break new ground for Berleant, a better introduction to his work would be difficult to find. The importance of an aesthetics beyond art is illustrated by Berleant’s claim that ‘the complex experience we call aesthetic is not only important but central’ (vii). This experience extends beyond artworks—especially those which challenge the traditional boundaries of appreciator and appreciated—into the environments which characterize our everyday lives. Likewise his aesthetic purview includes not solely traditional notions of beauty but rather the more mundane, incomplete, and even negative experiences we undertake; aesthetics, here, is not disinterested or unified, but simply ‘a theory of sensibility’ (viii).
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".