MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029104240 · doi:10.1145/2790994.2791008

Extending computational models of abstract motion with movement qualities

2015· article· en· W2029104240 on OpenAlexaff
Matt Lockyer, Lyn Bartram, Thecla Schiphorst, Karen Studd

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)Computer scienceMotion (physics)Computational modelArtificial intelligencePhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The affectively rich expressive capacity of movement and motion is well established in art, performance, animation and visualization but research in perception, cognitive and social psychology provides only limited insight into the visual features that underpin this richness, and artistic principles are not amenable to computational modeling. Recent research has shown the communicative potential of simple abstract motions, absent of figure, to convey affect [23] based on a limited algorithmic model manipulating basic motion dimensions such as shape, speed and direction. Evidence suggests that descriptive frameworks of human movement expression, such as Laban Movement Analysis (LMA), are effective analytical tools with established principles and models; yet the benefits and challenges of incorporating these concepts into larger frameworks of motion and animation has not been rigorously explored. We present a computational model and prototype implementation that incorporates LMA core concepts and principles with established motion algorithms such that users can represent and explore LMA concepts using abstract motions. The model is the outcome of an indepth qualitative study with Certified Movement Analysts (CMAs) exploring, creating and analyzing the potential of low-level animation features to communicate expressive qualities of movement. A more comprehensive design space includes both new parameters for manipulation and a synthesis of lower-level dimensions into the more semantic concepts of Laban principles. In this paper, we discuss the evolution of the model to incorporate these principles of human movement, next steps, and relate the potential applicability of this research to applications in art, visualization and cognition.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207