MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499654429 · doi:10.1017/ccol0521792711.013

Tolstoy’s aesthetics

2002· book-chapter· es· W2499654429 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAestheticsStatement (logic)ArtTone (literature)PhilosophyLiteratureVisual artsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the many definitions and defenses of art produced by the world’s great practicing artists, Tolstoy’s is surely one of the most peculiar. It is curiously selfless. In fact, so far is Tolstoy from using such a forum to defend his own practice that in his most programmatic statement on aesthetics, the 1897 treatise What is Art?, he consigns his own acclaimed masterworks to the category of bad art. The company, to be sure, is superb: Shakespeare, Dante, much of Pushkin, and almost all of Beethoven and Wagner are also so classified. Tolstoy’s eccentric and provocative judgments on individual world-class artists cannot be judged, however, apart from his larger vision of art’s place in the human world. That worldview can be (and by many, has been) rejected, but my purpose in the present discussion is to examine it from within and on its own terms. For there is a surprising toughness, subtlety, and integrity to many components of this vision, which Tolstoy’s categorical tone often masks.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it