MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE INVESTIGATION OF LITERARY AND MUSIC FROM THE ONTOLOGY PERSPECTIVE IN ACCORDING TO THE INGARDEN,S VIEW

2019· article· en· W2956526864 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ali Mehdizadeh Ashrafi

Bibliographic record

VenueGênero & Direito · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainability and Innovation in Business
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OttawaNorthwestern University
KeywordsOntologyPerspective (graphical)Work (physics)Work of artMusicalComputer scienceLayer (electronics)AestheticsArtEpistemologyVisual artsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classical music works have a single ontology. On the one hand, the musical work is the one that the composer has composed, and on the other hand, this work gets a different existence every time. The existence of literary work is also a layer of layer, and the effect is realized in varying degrees in each of these layers. Roman Ingannd is the founder of the ontology of art. According to Ingardin,s view, every work of art has unconventional spaces that the audience completes during their aesthetic experience. Therefore, understanding the work of art requires the active participation of the audience and the work is calibrated in an interdisciplinary approach.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGênero & DireitoSame topicSustainability and Innovation in BusinessFrench-language works237,207