Sculptural Image of Philosophers in Art: Grigory Skovoroda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article defines that, in modern times, fundamental ideas about monumental and decorative sculpture are beginning to undergo a rethinking, which also affected the foundations of the student learning process.It is revealed that the complex path of development that plastic has done over the course of a century needs a comprehensive philosophical and aesthetic understanding.Of particular relevance is the task of identifying the ideological sources of these changes, designating their stages, and determining the direction of evolution.The aim of the study is to reveal the transformation of the plastic image in the context of the history of culture and its development trends.Identification of features of the sculptural image of philosophers and the rationale for the search for the plastic image of G. Skovoroda.It is distinguished from history that the dominant interpretation of the subject plays the decisive role in the formation of the plastic image.For the culture of the 20th century with the position of anthropological negativism that is relevant to it as a whole, such stages of plastic image transformation as dehumanization of the image, deformation of the bodily image, image of fragmented, split corporality are caused by changes in the concepts of the subject.The form, the plastic image requires in addition for the full existence of a verbal expression, which can also be purely formal and fluid, but it is precisely the connectedness of "words and things" that gives rise to a work of art.The conclusions substantiate that the plastic image of G. S. Skovoroda, considered from the point of view of his formative role, plastic characteristics and thematic training programs, allowed to identify features in the process of teaching students and create a method of its manufacture in practice, and special attention in the learning process is necessary to give the figurative, associative characteristics of the means of artistic expression.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".