MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012307071 · doi:10.5539/ass.v6n4p39

Study on Image Design in Animation

2010· article· en· W2012307071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Minghua Liu, Ping Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationExaggerationStyle (visual arts)Expression (computer science)ConnotationComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Computer animationMotion (physics)Art designNon-photorealistic renderingComputer graphics (images)AestheticsComputer facial animationArtificial intelligenceVisual artsArtLinguisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author makes analysis and study on the three aspects of the technique of expression of image design in animation, artistic style of its image design and local characteristics of its image design, and analyzes such figures of speeches as transformation, exaggeration, combination and personification. It is exactly these expressive elements that enrich image of animation and fills it with more vitality. This article mainly studies the expressive elements of image design from the three perspectives of artistic style, that is, modeling style, motion performance, and indisguise, while design of modeling, motion and indisguise are expressive elements without which the style of animation can not go. Finally, the author explores and studies local characteristics of Chinese animation, Japanese animation and American animation, and comes to the conclusion that image design of animation has indiscerptible relationship with local characteristics of a country and local cultural tradition of the country has a direct effect on design connotation of the image.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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