MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382938155 · doi:10.1364/oe.492990

How Itten’s color diagram fails to illustrate color mixing of paints

2023· article· en· W4382938155 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsAkzoNobel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiagramOpticsMixing (physics)Primary colorColor differenceColor modelColor rendering indexColor spacePhysicsComputer scienceMathematicsWhite lightArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Itten's color diagram, published in 1961, is still considered by many to be the cornerstone of color education. We show experimentally and theoretically that by mixing oil paints it is hardly possible to reproduce Itten's primary colors red, yellow and blue such that their mixtures produce Itten's secondary colors orange, green and purple. Optical models show why it is highly unlikely that paints can be created that follow the color mixing rules from Itten's color diagram. Our results confirm and explain earlier anecdotal evidence. We conclude that Itten's color diagram does not show how paint colors mix, and disagrees with optical theory and experimental evidence.

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 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 score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.263 · 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