The thinker: opposing directionality of lighting bias within sculptural artwork
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals tend to perceive the direction of light to come from above and slightly from the left; it has been speculated that this phenomenon is also producing similar lighting preferences within 2-dimensional artworks (e.g., paintings, advertisements). The purpose of the present study was to address if lighting bias was present in the 3-dimensional medium of sculpture by implementing a virtual art gallery lighting paradigm. Thirty-nine participants completed a computer task that consisted of 48 galleries each containing one sculpture (24 original sculptures, 24 mirror-reversed) which was surrounded by eight lights (above/below, left/right, front/back). Participants would select one light source to illuminate the sculpture in a manner they perceived to be the most aesthetically pleasing. The results indicated a significant preference for lights positioned from above and from the right, a finding that is contradictory to previous lighting bias research examining artworks. An interpretation for the rightward bias applies the perceptual concept of subjective lighting equality. Objects illuminated from the left typically appear brighter in comparison to right-side lighting; in sculpture, however, increased luminosity can reduce the sculptural detail, and may have been compensated via right-side lighting choices within the lighting task.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".