Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper juxtaposes the key postulates of Kant’s and Hartmann’s aesthetics of the beau- tiful and the sublime with Karl Rosenkranz’s aesthetics of ugliness in order to examine the dynamics of the relationship between the beautiful, the sublime, and the ugly in art. The paper’s working hypothesis is that the aesthetics of ugliness is necessary since the ugly and the beautiful form a binary opposition, given that the concept of the beautiful cannot be known and understood without the concept of the ugly. To investigate this hypothesis, the paper analyzes selected Roman Tales by Alberto Moravia (1907-1990), one of the most significant modern Italian writers, whose characters come from the margins of the society and belong to various categories of the ugly based on Rosenkranz’s nomenclature from The Aesthetics of Ugliness. With their physical and spiritual ugliness, Moravia’s characters negate the banalities of life and prove that the mundane is not beautiful per se, but is more often than not ugly and ordinary, and even as such it deserves to be the object of art.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.005 |
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".