MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992439329 · doi:10.2190/em.30.1.h

How to Find Refutations of the Golden Section without Really Trying

2012· article· en· W1992439329 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher D. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueEmpirical Studies of the Arts · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Section (typography)Artifact (error)EpistemologyGolden ratioEmpirical evidencePhilosophyPsychologyAestheticsMathematicsComputer scienceGeometryMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For over 150 years, many people have claimed that the number popularly known as the Golden Section has particularly appealing aesthetic properties when incorporated into the proportions of visual artworks. Although the empirical evidence for these claims has been equivocal, in the 1980s an important mathematical argument seemed to show that many, perhaps nearly all, empirical discoveries of the legendary number in art and nature were probably mathematical artifacts. This article overturns that argument as being, itself, the artifact of an unrealistic assumption.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmpirical Studies of the ArtsSame topicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsFrench-language works237,207