MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1728531419

Analysis of Categorization of Animation Script Writing’s Target Audience

2015· article· en· W1728531419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaona Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationCategorizationCommercializationObject (grammar)Scripting languageMarketizationComputer scienceMultimediaHistoryMarketingComputer graphics (images)BusinessArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current cultural market environment, animations take an increasing share in television audience and theatrical box office earnings year by year and commercialization and marketization of animations has become an inevitable trend in the development of animation industry. The influences of market factors play a more and more important role in script writing, and therefore, the market factors can’t be ignored during the script writing. There should be definite object of target audience in animation script writing and the proper positioning of target audience is the first factor that should be identified in the creation of animation script. Categorizing animation audiences on the basis of their psychological and physical development, aesthetic ability and aesthetic expectations has great guiding significance for the animation script writing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicDigital Media and Visual ArtFrench-language works237,207