A portrait of the artist as a Post-Hermeneutic, Neo-Kantian, transubstantiation of the de-authorized postmodern author or how I learned to stop worrying and love the jargon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is an interpretation and defense of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgment. Several commentators see in Kant's theory of beauty grave philosophical problems that cannot be rectified; consequently, they declare his entire work to be unsalvageable. I disagree with them. Through a careful analysis of his words, I attempt to recreate his arguments in the best possible light, to present them as not only intelligent and defensible in his time but in ours as well. I believe what emerges is a theory of beauty that can withstand the criticisms of radical postmodern thinkers as well as conservative traditionalists. Kant's theory allows for the significance of a work of art to be fluid, constantly changing, without also allowing that the work can mean anything at all. His account of beauty explains not only why we find certain objects beautiful, but why we also believe that others should also find the same objects beautiful. Moreover, it permits us to discuss endlessly the significance of a beautiful object without thereby committing us to there being absolute truths about the object's meaning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".