MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504294352

Animation principles and Laban movement analysis: movement frameworks for creating empathic character performances

2014· book· en· W2504294352 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

VenueETC Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsEmily Carr University of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationMovement (music)StudioCharacter animationAnimeContext (archaeology)Visual artsIllusionCharacter (mathematics)Computer scienceComputer animationArtAestheticsPsychologyHistoryArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of animated movement at the Disney studio during the 1930s is pivotal to the formalization of believable and authentic movement parameters. During this era, a core team of animators began to experiment with animated movement. As reported by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston in The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation (1981), Walt Disney pushed the animators to develop their skills and create a more physically believable animated world. Gradually, a terminology, or language of animated movement evolved, which became known as the Principles of Animation (Johnston & Thomas, 1981). As these precepts are widely known and can be referenced in The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation, I will briefly paraphrase them here and apply them in context throughout this chapter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.262 · 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