Nomadic Models of Postmodern Aesthetics: Soteriological Choice of the Teacher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. The aim of the article is to define the concept of aesthetic competence of the nomad teacher of postmodern era based on a comparative analysis of two aesthetic models (metis paraesthetics and soteriological aesthetics). Methods. The subject of study is anthropotemporal methodology of acquiring aesthetic competence as an act of spiritual transformation (approaches, paradigm, priorities, criteria of effectiveness). The analysis of the stages of nomad’s dianoic choice in the process of understanding beauty as a boon was carried out using the method of epistemological design, according to which emotions function cognitively in aesthetic experience. The technology of spiritual self-coaching was chosen to activate all the structural components of aesthetic competence – the intention to correct aesthetic apperception and the competencies of emotional-reflective, value-semantic, aesthetic and worldview revaluation. Results. The implementation of the chosen technology opened up the possibility of reorientation for the nomad teacher: from the drive of the performer-trickster to a humble and grateful anticipation of the beauty as transcendent – to overcoming the power of inertia of previous dependence, responses to the calls of a pure (still “adventurous”) mind. A cluster analysis of the results of the completed tasks was carried out for the regression description of the efficiency of the technology. Conclusion. The soteriological concept of the aesthetic competence of the nomad teacher focuses attention on the essential coexistence of the teacher with students throughout the entire process of his self-determination. The practical experience of its implementation can make a positive contribution to reforming postmodern aesthetic education.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".