Winckelmanns Idee der Schönheit und ihr Einfluss auf Walter Pater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following work deals with the idea of Beauty as seen in the work of \nWinckelmann and its influence on Walter Pater, the English critic. The \nconcept of Beauty is to be analyzed chronologically. First of all, the concept \nof Beauty in Winckelmann’s work will be analysed and its particularities will \nbe described. Further, the concept of Beauty will be analyzed in so far as it \nchanges throughout time and influences the further development of aesthetic \ntheory. Hegel takes up Winckelmann’s idea of Beauty and uses this idea in \nhis own aesthetic theory. Walter Pater takes up and develops the idea of \nBeauty not only from Winckelmann, but also from Hegel. The influence of \nboth art critics, Winckelmann and Hegel, on Walter Pater will be shown in \nthis thesis. The latter, as this thesis shows, was to develop his own aesthetic \ntheory, which is supported by the concept of Beauty in Winckelmann and \nHegel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".