MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100245944 · doi:10.1162/002409400552379

On Anamorphosis: Setting Some Things Straight

2000· article· en· W2100245944 on OpenAlexaff
David Topper

Bibliographic record

VenueLeonardo · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary, Cultural, Historical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorPostmodernismPerceptionAestheticsEpistemologyComputer scienceSociologyArtPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently there has been a revival of anamorphic imagery, notably in its use as a metaphor by postmodern theorists. But often, discussions of anamorphosis are confused, and even wrong. In this article, the author not only focuses upon correcting these errors, but also analyzes our perception of anamorphic images, since there is a dearth of such in the literature. The resulting discussion points out aspects of how we see anamorphs that have never been pointed out before.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.042
Scholarly communication0.0060.020
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations52
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeonardoSame topicLiterary, Cultural, Historical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207