Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An Ontology of Multiple Artworks is the first book-length critical analytic treatment in over forty years of the metaphysical issues relating to the different kinds of ‘multiple’ artworks. Multiple artworks are works that can have multiple ‘instances’: for example, there can be multiple copies of a novel, or multiple performances of a musical work. This book takes an adequate ontology of multiple artworks to be reflectively accountable to the kinds of considerations to which authors have appealed in arguing for ontological understandings of works, in particular multiple art forms. Nine such ‘explananda’ structure the discussion. After clarifying what ‘multiplicity’ in the arts amounts to, it critically assesses the ‘Platonist’ idea that multiple artworks must be abstract entities of some sort existing independently of our creative and appreciative practices. It measures Platonism against the different explananda and also ‘weights’ the explananda themselves. It also reflects upon the methodological constraints that should govern this kind of philosophical inquiry. It argues that Platonism about multiple artworks is seriously compromised, and considers different non-Platonist options. It further argues that the account that best explains the weighted explananda is the ‘Wollheimian-type’ theory according to which multiple artworks are performances essentially embedded in artistic practices. Finally, it assesses sceptical challenges to the very idea that there are such things as multiple artworks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".