MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinctive Parameters of Expressive Motion

2009· article· en· W2159073265 on OpenAlex

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

VenueEurographics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion (physics)PerceptionAssociation (psychology)Scope (computer science)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work has shown the potential of basic perceptual properties of motion for notification, association and visual search. Yet evidence from fields as diverse as perceptual science, social psychology and the performing arts suggest that motion has much richer communication potential in its interpretative scope. A long history of research and practice in the affective properties of motion has resulted in a bewildering plethora of potentially rich communicative attributes. What remains to be established is how and whether these perceptual effects and impressions can be computationally manipulated in a display environment as variables of affective communication. In this paper we explore attributes of expressive motion and report initial results from a study in which we explored which attributes might be most important in distinguishing motions meant to convey emotion.

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 score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.285 · 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