MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297996215 · doi:10.1080/01426397.2022.2121809

Ink wash virtualities in Qing landscape painting

2022· article· en· W4297996215 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCommonwealth Scholarship CommissionUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsRealmSublimePaintingLiminalityLandscape paintingArtRepresentation (politics)AestheticsMeaning (existential)Visual artsWildnessArt historyHistoryArchaeologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study considers virtuality in Qing ink wash landscape paintings via an album by Pan Gongshou (1741–94). We examine the painterly devices by which a liminal, ‘virtual,’ space is constructed as a ‘realm’ or world in which the viewer is synaesthetically absorbed into a landscape image. Landscape in this tradition is not a pure creation of the human gaze, nor a representation of material elements and topography. We examine the painterly devices through which a sublime loss of critical distance is linked to the represented elements to absorb the viewer into what Wang Guoweii (1877–1927) proposed as a ‘realm without self.’ Virtualities are intangible but real; they supplement material elements that are represented, changing their meaning and affect. These qualities are at the heart of a geometry of gazes and relations that compose the visual experience of a virtual landscape.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient 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 score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.282 · 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