Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been generally accepted in art history that nature ranks as master and ideal of the arts. Everybody knows examples of nature-related artworks created over centuries and decades in a conventional manner. Most of the contemporary readers witnessed the invention of the computer as a tool used in natural sciences, and later, in the arts as well. As a natural scientist and curator of art exhibitions, the author of this chapter was continually involved in this contemporary development which raised a fundamental question: Would the computer as a tool be a means to generate new representations of nature related art? This would demand results that ought to be different from conventional works of art as to the conceptional creation processes as well as the output. Some theoretical backgrounds and categorizing of such creations are discussed in this chapter and then illustrated by several examples from artists participating in a series of ´Computerkunst/Computer Art’ exhibitions during the quarter of the last centuries (1986-2010). Though it might be too soon to judge computational art works concerning their importance in Art History, a closer investigation in the creational processes and social contexts seems helpful and worthwhile.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".