MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W138699943 · doi:10.14236/ewic/eva2010.20

Exploring Persian rug design using a computational evolutionary approach

2010· article· en· W138699943 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic workshops in computing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersianComputer scienceGenetic algorithmDomain (mathematical analysis)Evolutionary computationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering the art of Persian rug design as a computation creative design problem, with a vast domain space of possible design solutions that have aesthetic, cultural and historical considerations, we describe our dual stage genetic algorithm system for designing basic patterns of a specific type of Persian rugs. Our approach uses hard and soft design rules that we have been gleaned from the passed down traditions of “Shah Abbas” Persian rug design. We break down the rug generation into two phases. In the first phase, the rug (a collection of connected spirals as a core structure) is generated exploiting the available genetic operators. In the second phase, an evaluation mechanism based on the most basic soft design rules ranks each generated genotype and the highly ranked genotypes are presented to the user to select the most aesthetically acceptable rugs for the next evolution. We report on early results in this paper.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.192 · 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