MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta-Ethics and Meta-Aesthetics

2023· book-chapter· en· W4385937946 on OpenAlexaff
Alex King

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEthics, Aesthetics, and Art
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlourishingAestheticsRealismEveryday AestheticsArtPhilosophyEpistemologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Metaethics is a live and flourishing subdiscipline of ethics, and meta-aesthetics flourishes in aesthetics, but only infrequently under that title. Still, in the long history of aesthetics and the philosophy of art, a great many thinkers have delved into meta-aesthetic issues. Given their different histories and focal points, metaethics and meta-aesthetics have gone in somewhat different directions. As a result, both would benefit from more contemporary cross-pollination. This chapter investigates four epicenters of debate that should be of importance to anyone working in meta-aesthetics. It will also provisionally defend realism, partly to illustrate how the arguments work, but partly to show that aesthetic realism isn’t the nonstarter it is sometimes taken to be.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.040 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicEthics, Aesthetics, and ArtFrench-language works237,207