Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first of three art chapters describes deep-ken approaches to the problem of representation: Deep-ken art is beautiful and proportioned, indifferent to plain-ken particularities, and richly (literally, with expensive material) coloured. The chapter looks in particular at consonances between symbol and referent, between exemplars of a tradition, between parts and the whole, between the expense of the pigments and the awesomeness of the subject, and between the depicted and the context of the art. The fifteenth-century is one of the great turning points in Western art history, celebrated as a shift towards images more three-dimensional, natural, and realistic—that is, closer to the plain-ken spacetime we generally perceive as natural and real. Rather than talking about a shift from abstract to real, we might consider a shift from a deep-ken realism to a plain-ken realism. Each style looks real if the viewer has the appropriate perspective. Indeed, in eastern Orthodox societies, Christians who had religious visions could and did use these “abstract” icons to identify their apparitions. Looking at Renaissance art as a shift between two kinds of realism, from the deep ken to the plain ken, makes it easier to dispel, or even reverse, triumphalist accounts of Renaissance art as progress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".