Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an auto-theoretical essay on the importance of aesthetics and its nuances concerning identity. Autotheory is a literary practice in which the author presents a theory and uses autobiographical evidence to support it. There is a disregard for aesthetics on a societal level. Aesthetics are defined in this essay as personal tastes that are core to a person’s identity, whether that identity is true to the subject or what they feel they should aspire to be. When thinking about aesthetics, there is a common belief that aesthetics are a superficial aspect of one’s identity. While aesthetics is mostly visually based, this essay argues that aesthetics evoke deeper meaning based on the already established identity of the subject. Through the dissection of identities and their nuances, this essay discusses how aesthetics play a deeper role in identity and community building. This essay also breaks down certain connotations of aesthetics, especially concerning femininity and Blackness. There is a notion that women should care about how they look because they are expected to present ‘acceptably.’ If aesthetics concerns how subjects present themselves, this essay argues that there is a negative view of aesthetics due to its association with femininity. When analyzing femininity through the context of Blackness, aesthetics are now something that a Black female subject should aspire to, whether she wants to or not. This essay argues that the intersectionality of Blackness and femininity means that certain aesthetics can be imposed onto others. Aesthetics are integral to how subjects want to or feel they should express themselves. It is worth discussing because it can show how or why certain aesthetics are adopted or rejected. This essay also notes that an acknowledgment of one’s aesthetic can allow for a deeper understanding and appreciation of the subject’s self. Due to the unconventional nature of auto theory, this essay does not follow traditional essay rules in terms of format, voice, and language.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".