Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper begins with Nick Pearce’s exploration of how the senses are engaged as tools in the production and connoisseurship of the high arts in China, starting with calligraphy and moving on to a consideration of painting, bronze vessels and funerary objects. The sensuous dimensions of these diverse media are evoked and also, at a more abstract level, the peculiarly Chinese “sense of temporality” that imbues them with meaning and value. The imperial (or “premodern”) Chinese sense of temporality is interrogated by Beverley Best in her response. The latter brings a historical materialist perspective to bear on Pearce’s account of timelessness in the appreciation of Chinese art (until it got museumized). This is referred to as “the past in the present [as tradition – Best adds].” Best juxtaposes this imperial, “premodern” ideological formation with the modern sense of “past-present-future as progress” and the aesthetics of singularity or novelty (after Jameson). This approach is in turn challenged by Mingyuan Hu in the rejoinder, where questions about the sense of temporality and about time itself, and about theory and historical enquiry, are posed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".