MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2384109411

On the Aesthetic Characteristics of Internet Art in Web 3.0 Era

2015· article· en· W2384109411 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

VenueJournal of Northeast Normal University · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetInteractivityPerspective (graphical)Construct (python library)AestheticsInternet privacySociologyComputer scienceArtMultimediaWorld Wide WebVisual arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entering into the Web3.0 Era,the essential difference from the traditional art can no longer be ignored in examining internet art.Also,we need a more thorough thinking on the fusion of the technology characteristics and transmission characteristics of the internet.Therefore,the main logical origin of this essay is to break the disciplinary boundaries,and form a research vision in which art,communication,aesthetics are fused.From the perspective of Lasswell's communication model,which is,Who(says),What(to),Whom(in),What Channel(with),What Effect,through deep analysis,we can find five aesthetic characteristics of internet art.They are:the interactivity between internet's aesthetic speech and its audiences,the hypertextuality of internet's aesthetic form,the hypermedia of internet's aesthetic transmission,and the invented reality of internet's aesthetic effects.After identifying the internet's aesthetic characteristics,we should make better use of its aesthetic rules and construct more aesthetic contexts for the audiences in daily life.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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