MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888881218 · doi:10.5539/mas.v12n9p200

An Investigation on Painting and Imagery in Zen

2018· article· en· W2888881218 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanskritBuddhismGautama BuddhaPaintingNaturalnessMeditationLiteratureMeaning (existential)PhilosophyAllusionTaoismTerm (time)AestheticsComputer scienceArtEpistemologyTheologyVisual artsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research considers painting and imagery in Zen as an art and its objective is to introduce the influence of Zen on visual arts. The term “Zen” is derived from Sanskrit and it means “thinking”. In China and India, Zen Buddhism is known as “Liberated Way of Life” and is strongly influenced by Taoism. It is said that Zen began with an allusion, as one day, instead of preaching, Buddha appeared with a flower in his hand when one of his followers received his speechless message. That was when Zen, with its Indian Dhyāna root meaning meditation, was born.The research method here is descriptive and analytical with emphasis on inductive approach (checking samples and providing theory).The resulted process concludes that Zen imagery includes seven principles: asymmetry, purity, stamina, naturalness, deepness, richness and quietism, however; peace or quietism is the concept taken into consideration more than other ones.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.272 · 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