Bibliographic record
Abstract
We cannot evaluate the action of fictional projection by reference to the truth and falsehood of what was claimed. For nothing was claimed. Nicholas Wolterstorff Nicholas Wolterstorff's Works and Worlds of Art challenges modern aesthetic emphases on expressive artistic creation (genius) and disinterested aesthetic experience (taste). His alternative is to construe works of art as instruments and objects of action, and to portray representation (mimesis) as an action that is “pervasive and fundamental in the arts” (p. xv). This alternative implies a propositionally inflected and realist correspondence theory of truth. Unlike Goodman, Wolterstorff retains propositions as the locus of truth, and he endorses correspondence as the primary criterion of truth. But unlike the propositionist T. M. Greene, he denies that the propositional content of artworks can be substantially true or false. Central to Wolterstorff's account of art's cognitive functions is the “action” of fictive world projection: presenting “states of affairs” for people “to reflect on, to ponder over, to explore the implications of, to conduct strandwise extrapolation on” (p. 233). This presenting can be either direct (“introducing”) or indirect (“posing of”), and it can be true to actuality or true to a person's or community's beliefs, including the artist's own vision. It does not appear as if the presenting, or the work itself, can be true about something, however. Hence for Wolterstorff artworks cannot be substantially true or false: fictive world projection involves correspondence without truth. That, at least, is the interpretation I propose.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".