MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201379819

Interstellar: A Visual Structure of the Film

2018· article· en· W3201379819 on OpenAlexaff
Brooke Langmaid

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Technology, and Culture
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineInfographicComputer scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My creative interpretation of the film Interstellar displays the non-linear timeline of the movie in the shape of Einstein’s diagram of the Theory of Relativity. The main character in Interstellar, Coop, travels through space to attempt to find a new world to save the human population. Because of the gravity of Gargantua, a black hole, time is warped. My infographic poster displays how Coop’s space timeline and the Earth’s time coordinate and happen simultaneously. Beginning at the bottom of the diagram, the timeline runs counter clockwise, matching the significant events on Earth with the corresponding events happening in Space. In the infographic, each line on the cone represents 5 minutes in the movie. The Earth timeline loops because the actions happening in the past overlap with Murph’s (Coop’s daughter) life in the latter half of the movie. Reoccurring actions are marked by icons on the timeline, and significant actions and simultaneous actions are colour coded. A model of the Relativity of Space and Time is provided so the reader can see that the shape of the infographic is displayed based on a scientific diagram. This poster displays the timeline of Interstellar in a visual and comprehensive way, using a scientific model to communicate the information. It simplifies the seemingly-confusing time jumping from Earth to Space time. Discipline: Design Studies Faculty Mentor: Constanza Pacher

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudent Research ProceedingsSame topicArt, Technology, and CultureFrench-language works237,207