MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594140099 · doi:10.3138/seminar.53.1.01

Anselm Kiefer and the Sign of the Sublime

2017· article· en· W2594140099 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminar A Journal of Germanic Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature and Cultural Memory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimeSign (mathematics)HegelianismRepresentation (politics)Repetition (rhetorical device)TRACE (psycholinguistics)PhilosophyMythologyExpression (computer science)AestheticsThe SymbolicEpistemologyPsychoanalysisLiteratureArt historyArtLinguisticsPsychologyPoliticsLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to show what happens when certain of Anselm Kiefer’s images are brought under the sign of the sublime – when those works are read as instances that confront us with the discursive limits of language and the transience of the present. Beginning with a consideration of the nature of negativity, the article then relates this thinking to questions surrounding historical experience, repetition, and memorialization. Taking thinkers such as Hegel, Benjamin, Adorno, Freud, and Lyotard as guides, it suggests that Kiefer’s work drives towards a specifically ruinous kind of negativity that, always at odds with its symbolic representation, forms at once an expression of and a counterforce to myth.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.229 · 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