MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791967071 · doi:10.28984/ct.v1i1.90

The Sublime and Human Creations

2017· article· en· W2791967071 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brendan McShane

Bibliographic record

VenueCon Texte · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimeAssertionExtant taxonOrder (exchange)PhilosophyAestheticsEpistemologyPoint (geometry)Computer scienceMathematicsEconomicsGeometryProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immanuel Kant pre-emptively excludes all man-made contrivances from his definition of the sublime. The limitations of human creation and the purposiveness in its design preclude it from consideration from both mathematical and dynamic sublimity. At best, human creation is “second-order” or “impurely” sublime. This paper thoroughly considers this assertion and searches for possible exceptions, both hypothetical and extant. It implies that humankind may be a nearing a point where it is able to create a pure example of the sublime, as defined by Kant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.045
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCon TexteSame topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207