MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388574686 · doi:10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100069

Art and the artificial

2023· article· en· W4388574686 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

VenueJournal of Creativity · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityInteractivityEmbodied cognitionAffordanceCognitive scienceCognitionComputational creativityComputer sciencePhenomenology (philosophy)Human–computer interactionProcess (computing)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceEpistemologyMultimediaSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the philosophical implications of machine learning text-to-image synthesis in a practice-based phenomenology of the computational poetics of a visual art process. It is hypothesized that artificial intelligence (AI) facilitated reflective image development fosters an anticipatory aesthetics in creative interactivity. The concept of AI-mediated “perspectival affordance” is introduced and its application to affective computing design emphasized. It is proposed that positioning intelligent systems as collaborative creativity tools promotes a dynamic interplay that envisions creativity as an anticipatory system, conceived of as those systems where exchange between artist and tool is mediated by future-oriented affective projection upon the system. The paper aims to establish a cognitive framework for AI-mediated creativity grounded in anticipatory interactivity, enhancing understanding of embodied cognition as mediated by AI in human-centered creativity support systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.264 · 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