MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973191117 · doi:10.3968/10946

Visual Thinking: An Attempt at Dissecting Visual Aesthetics

2019· article· en· W2973191117 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hanibal Charles Srouji

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)PerceptionReading (process)Foundation (evidence)Value (mathematics)CognitionAestheticsAffect (linguistics)Cognitive scienceVisual perceptionComputer sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyEpistemologyArtLinguisticsCommunicationPhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Art Education, reading and understanding artworks and designs through a direct process of structural analysis improve visual thinking and performance, especially at the foundation level. This paper examines ways in which the learning process takes place. It argues that mathematical relations and geometry are underlying constitutes in artworks. The analytical process enhances the learners’ cognition, perception, and their acquisition of visual and iterative skills that can significantly affect their development. Accordingly, it considers the mechanisms of the analysis and their educational value, as these may solicit novel rereadings of the artworks and their aesthetics.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207