MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972416486 · doi:10.1109/psivt.2010.85

What Makes Motion Meaningful? Affective Properties of Abstract Motion

2010· article· en· W1972416486 on OpenAlexaff
Lyn Bartram, Ai Nakatani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationMotion (physics)Computer sciencePerceptionHuman–computer interactionInterpretation (philosophy)VisualizationComputer animationModality (human–computer interaction)Computer graphicsAffect (linguistics)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceMultimediaComputer graphics (images)PsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motion provides a rich modality for communicating emotion and creating affect, and developing techniques for analyzing, manipulating and enhancing animations in video and computer graphics is an active research area. However, we have little empirical evidence of how particular attributes of motion elicit particular impressions. In this paper we describe a study of how perceptual attributes of abstract motion contribute to affective interpretation. Our results show that even small simple motions can reliably evoke certain impressions given particular motion attributes. These results contribute to our understanding of computational aesthetics and have implications for the design of media experiences, visualization, interactive art and immersive environments. They also provide insight into what properties of motion might prove most evocative in video and animation textures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAesthetic Perception and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207