MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251697033 · doi:10.1080/17513472.2011.574870

Cover

2011· article· en· W4251697033 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueJournal of Mathematics and the Arts · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover (algebra)Variation (astronomy)PaintingComputer scienceCluster analysisPheromoneArt historyArtificial intelligenceArtEcologyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cover Illustration: Six variations on an evolved ant painting, Gary Greenfield, © 2007. One of the hallmarks of algorithmic art is the use of pseudorandom number generators to explore subtle variation. In this example, variation is obtained by pseudorandomly clustering 500 virtual ants who then ‘paint’ in four different colours on an initially all-grey background in response to invisible pheromones that are being deposited, diffused and evaporated within their virtual environment. (For technical details, see G. Greenfield, On evolving multi-pheromone ant paintings, in Evolutionary Computation 2006, IEEE Congress on Computational Intelligence, Vancouver, BC, Canada, IEEE Press, 2006, pp. 2072–2078.)

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.206 · 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