MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309598565 · doi:10.1145/3565516.3565523

The Colour of Horror

2022· article· en· W4309598565 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley Istead, Andreea Pocol, Sherman Siu, William Chen, Alex Zdanowicz, Alex Rowaan, Craig S. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisWeightingComputer sciencePalette (painting)Theme (computing)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer graphics (images)ArtVisual artsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

In this paper, we present a simple method to produce a colour palette for film trailers. Our method uses k-means clustering with a saturation-based weighting to extract the dominant colours from the frames of the trailer. We use our method to generate the palettes of 29 thousand film trailers from 1960 to 2019. We aggregate these palettes by era, genre, and director by re-applying our clustering method, and we note various trends in the use of colour over time and between genres. We also show that our generated palettes reflect changes in mood and theme across films in a series, and we demonstrate the palettes of notable directors.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Computational extraction of color palettes from film trailers; a media analysis question.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The work uses computational methods to analyze color palettes in films.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Computational colour-palette analysis of film trailers is media/CS application, not metaresearch.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207