Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter concerns the morality of style in place of the moralism that has defined accounts of film style and film form in categorical terms throughout the history of film theory. Following a distinction between morality and moralism, as offered by Émilie Hache and Bruno Latour—whereby the former refuses the simple categorical logic of the latter—I argue for a conception of style as that which increases our sensitization to what obliges us in unique terms and precisely where moralistic accounts of style have only ever worked to reaffirm what we already believe. The version of morality offered here links style (and against a particular notion of form as morally overriding) to a contingent conception of the self, one that can begin to describe how the details and idiosyncrasies of works of art enrich our understanding of ourselves and others, while always indicating, and expressly as style, how any decision or judgment cannot, and should not, conceal the alternatives that were available as options before any aesthetic or moral decision is made. At root, the chapter argues for a moral account of style that allows us to understand morality in aesthetic terms that are severed from preconceived concepts of judgment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".