MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286588386 · doi:10.3138/tjt-2022-0014

Aesthetic Experience in Self-identifying Perspective

2022· article· en· W4286588386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadezhda Gonotskaya

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsciousnessPerspective (graphical)Everyday lifeSelf-consciousnessAestheticsPersonalityRelation (database)RevelationEpistemologyPsychologySelfSociologySocial psychologyPhilosophyArtComputer scienceLiteratureVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reveals the relationship between individual self-awareness, an aesthetic attitude to reality, and art. The basis of the study of their relationship is the analysis of empirical self- consciousness or everyday consciousness, which differs from the pure self-consciousness presented in the classical philosophical tradition. Consideration of features of worldview construction in everyday life and aesthetic orientation of everyday consciousness allows, on the one hand, the reconsideration of the role of art in the formation of personality, and on the other hand, the revelation of the illusory nature of the classical view of the “I” as a monolithic, substantial unity. Contemporary art in particular stimulates us to play with images of the “I,” but at the same time it teaches us to keep distance between game situations and what is constitutive in relation to the “I,” allowing us to consolidate an integral image of ourselves in personality. Art goes beyond museums, actively invades the world of everyday life, and elicits the question of how much we have mastered the “art of being ourselves.”

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural CommunicationFrench-language works237,207