MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated Landscape Painting in the Style of Bob Ross

2009· article· en· W1579903388 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

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaintingLandscape paintingContext (archaeology)Style (visual arts)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Computer graphics (images)Oil paintingVisual artsArtificial intelligenceArtArchaeologyGeographyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a system that can generate convincing synthetic landscape paintings with no user intervention whatsoever, nor any information about 3D geometry or lighting. The system is based on a direct implementation of the "wet-on-wet" oil painting technique taught by Bob Ross for many years on his show The Joy of Painting. We implement a canvas model and a set of brushes that correspond to the canvas and brushes that Bob Ross used on his show. We then compose brush strokes into landscape features that replicate his approach stroke by stroke. Finally, we develop an engine for automatic layout of these features in a painting. We demonstrate this automated system in the context of the Bob Ross painting Forest Hills.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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