MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398255359 · doi:10.4236/jcc.2024.125005

A Discussion of Artificial Intelligence in Visual Art Education

2024· article· en· W4398255359 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 Computer and Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since ChatGPT emerged on November 30, 2022, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been increasingly discussed as a radical force that will change our world. People have become used to AI in which such ubiquitous technologies as Siri, Google, and Netflix deploy AI algorithms to answer questions, impart information, and provide recommendations. However, many individuals including originators and backers of AI have recently expressed grave concerns. In this paper, the authors will assess what is occurring with AI in Visual Arts Education, outline positives and negatives, and provide recommendations addressed specifically for teachers working in the field regarding emerging AI usage from kindergarten to grade twelve levels as well as in higher education.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.327 · 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