Following the Eyes of the Masters: Looking and Liking are Linked
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portrait artists claim that their choices with regard to textural detail guide the viewing experience and hence the artistic appreciation of the finished work. We tested these claims in experiments where eye gaze was monitored while viewers considered the relative artistic merit of a series of portraits. The portraits included both famous masterpieces and new portraits rendered from photographs using a parameterized nonphotorealistic technique to mimic Rembrandt (DiPaola, 2007). The findings have implications for understanding both human vision science and visual art. Portrait artists claim that their choices with regard to textural detail guide the viewing experience and hence the artistic appreciation of the finished work. We tested these claims in experiments where eye gaze was monitored while viewers considered the relative artistic merit of a series of portraits. The portraits included both famous masterpieces and new portraits rendered from photographs using a parameterized nonphotorealistic technique to mimic Rembrandt (DiPaola, 2007). The findings have implications for understanding both human vision science and visual art.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it