MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385434163 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-9579-3_10

Uncanny by Nature

2023· book-chapter· en· W4385434163 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

VenueDesign Thinking · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarContent (measure theory)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hopefully by now, you’ve already initiated your own content creation, experimenting with some of the creative building blocks when working with generative AI content. You’ve learned about reconsidering AI-generated content as prototypes and how AI are powerful prototyping machines. You’ve also learned about different compositional forms that are possible with AI generated content, how content is highly informed by text prompts, and how you can mash different ones together. This chapter deals with the unexpected and the awkward content that AI offers us, challenging our inclination to compare what they generate to some type of human-created standard. Some of the most interesting and bizarre features that come with any standard generative AI model can inspire your artistic creation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.333
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.214 · 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