MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518055943 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001318

Artist Statement: Pixels In

2016· article· en· W2518055943 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darian Goldin Stahl

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagentaObject (grammar)CyanTheme (computing)Visual artsArtComputer sciencePixelComputer graphics (images)PaintingArtificial intelligenceInkwellWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central theme of the artwork on this issue’s cover is the tension between educational objects and aesthetics. This artwork portrays a found anatomical model, which contains substantial liberties in the generalization of structures, saturation of color, and a glossy façade. It is an object that, nonetheless, is primarily meant for teaching purposes. This print acts to emphasize the contrast concerning the reality of our internal matter and the fetishization of the representative object. This print was created using a color separation process that has been bound together with wax. After digitally photographing the model, I split the image into the four colors that are used for industrial commercial printing: cyan, magenta, yellow, and black—commonly referred to as CMYK. I then printed these colors over one another using wax as the toner binding agent between each of the four layers. The resulting image has intense color and depth because of the layering of toner and wax. This print recalls the past and present of anatomy education by combining modern commercial printing practices with the historical use of wax as anatomical models. Pixels In at once reveals the inner anatomy while bringing attention to the artifice of the object. The hypersaturated colors and the gradient of enlarged pixels that hang over the object further the disconnection between model and reality. The more liberties taken to present a marketable model, the more it is distanced from a tool of education. This print is meant to remind the viewer that our bodies are not made of pixels, but of real matter that is not always beautiful, but is always wondrous. To see more of Darian’s work, please visit her Web site, www.dariangoldinstahl.com.Pixels InD.G. Stahl is a PhD student in fine art humanities, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; [email protected]

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207