MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610119122

Chaos, order and uncertainty when writing narrative for animation

2017· dissertation· en· W2610119122 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert L. Stephenson

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Access (University of Melbourne) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MelbourneMcGill University
KeywordsNarrativeAnimationOrder (exchange)Computer scienceCHAOS (operating system)Computer graphics (images)ArtLiteratureComputer securityEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advocating rules for inventing stories circumvents the complete experiences of writing.How can the writer best embrace uncertainty, draw on the known and expose their work to enlivening spontaneity?This research examines four animation projects written under different conditions using different approaches to making the narrative.Each work gradually leads to a direct approach, bringing the writing experience closer to the act of animating.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

Study designOther design
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva Access (University of Melbourne)Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207