MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611275265 · doi:10.51358/id.v14i1.502

Pixualization: Glitch art and Data visualization

2017· article· pt· W2611275265 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

VenueInfoDesign - Revista Brasileira de Design da Informação · 2017
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Technology, and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlitchPixelComputer scienceVisualizationGrayscaleRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer graphics (images)SortingAssertionData visualizationAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to their trans-modal affordances, techniques mainly used for the production of glitch art such as pixel sorting and data-bending are potential data visualization tools that can be effectively adapted to the representation of abstract relations. To demonstrate this assertion, we present a method intended for the visualization of data through these techniques. The method presented here consists in sorting the composite pixels of greyscale images to make evident relationships between pixels that otherwise would be impossible to perceive. Here, we use this method to arrange an array of images in a very specific order, but this is only one of the potential applications that this method could have.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.218 · 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