MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114877343 · doi:10.26807/cav.vi10.368

Ensayo sobre el análisis del problema del fin del arte en G.W.F. Hegel y Arthur C. Danto

2020· article· es· W3114877343 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndex revista de arte contemporáneo · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilosophical Thought and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMonsanto (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesHegelianismPhilosophyArtArt historyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El objetivo de este trabajo es el estudio del problema del fin del arte en G.W. F. Hegel y Arthur C, Danto. Su hipótesis central es que, a partir del análisis de la filosofía estética de ambos autores, el arte ha entrado, en el tiempo presente, en un escenario donde no hay ningún criterio definitivo para decir qué es o qué no es una obra de arte. En este sentido, todo puede ser susceptible de ser considerado una obra de arte.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.269 · 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