A stage for neuroscience and art: the OHBM BrainArt SIG perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science and art have been intertwined for centuries, as both embody means for humans to represent, communicate, and interpret our external and internal worlds. The collective effort to gather and organize knowledge about the brain blends well with a wide array of human creative activities, from visual and performing arts to interactive media. It thus comes as no surprise that the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) has a Special Interest Group (SIG) dedicated to providing a platform for (neuro)sci-art: the BrainArt SIG. Here, after properly introducing all the main characters, we follow the development of this captivating script: from its grassroots prelude within the Neuro Bureau to its recent online instantiations. In particular, we highlight our three exhibitions since becoming an OHBM SIG – Ars Cerebri, 2019; Neurodiversity, 2020; Big Data and Me, 2021 – the associated competitions, and the scientific visualization sessions that have contributed to making brain art a distinguishing feature of the OHBM annual meetings, for both in-person and virtual formats. Our digital object, written as a piece of theater, ends by highlighting the ways art can help (neuro)science reach a wider audience as well as break out of its comfort zone: a productive happily ever after!
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".