MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972476105 · doi:10.5539/ass.v4n8p36

Dealing with the Blank in Books’ Layout Design

2009· article· en· W1972476105 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lu Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlankIntensionRealmPaintingPleasureComputer scienceExpression (computer science)AestheticsComponent (thermodynamics)Visual artsEngineering drawingArtEpistemologyPsychologyEngineeringHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In traditional Chinese painting, blank functions importantly. But it is different from that of a general sense. It is actually the organic component of the whole piece of art work. Blank has a rich expression, making pictures vivid and lively. In the traditional painting and modern layout design, the content is black, that is, the entity. However, it is the blank that is oversensitive. When every entity is put in the position, there must be some blank to adjust the visual intension so that the strain and dynamic can be released and extended. The virtual space is blank-leaving. The blank in the format is not only for the visual pleasure but for an aesthetic realm it creates for readers.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicDigital Media and Visual ArtFrench-language works237,207