MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030106884 · doi:10.5555/2328888.2328895

The aMotion toolkit: painting with affective motion textures

2012· article· en· W2030106884 on OpenAlex
Matt Lockyer, Lyn Bartram

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalette (painting)Motion (physics)PaintingComputer scienceVisual artsHuman–computer interactionAffect (linguistics)Computer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceArtPsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual artists and designers frequently use carefully crafted motion textures -- patterns of ambient motion throughout a scene -- to imbue the atmosphere with affect. The design of such ambient visual cues is an elusive topic that has been studied painters, theatre directors, scenic designers, lighting designers, filmmakers, producers, and artists for years. Recent research shows that such motion textures have the capacity to be both perceptually efficient and powerfully evocative, but adding them to scenes requires careful manipulation by hand: no tools currently exist to facilitate this integration. In this paper we describe the design and development of the aMotion toolkit: a palette of composable motion brushes for image and video based on our affective motion research. We discuss insights from an on-going qualitative study with professional visual effects designers into how such capabilities can enhance their current practice

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.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAesthetic Perception and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207