MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409203864 · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2025.100890

Art in context: A multi-level analysis of art

2025· article· en· W4409203864 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Busch, Albert Malkin, Jordan Belisle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contextual Behavioral Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PsychologyAestheticsSocial psychologyArtHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiencing art, both as the artist and observer, plays a major role in experiencing humanity. The current paper approaches art through a behavioral lens rooted in functional contextualism, where producing and observing art are behaviors that emerge and evolve within a multilevel functional context, encompassing natural selection, operant selection, and cultural selection. At the biological level, evolutionary pressures have shaped neurological processes and physiological responses that support artistic engagement. At the operant level, relational frame theory provides insights into how language and experience transform the function of art, and, bi-directionally, how art transforms human experience. At the cultural level, art propagates shared practices and values through mechanisms like metacontingencies and cultural cusps, facilitating intergenerational transmission and societal change. Potential applications include therapeutic interventions leveraging art to promote psychological flexibility, educational initiatives fostering artistic appreciation, and community programs enhancing collective resilience. By integrating biological, behavioral, and cultural perspectives, this analysis highlights art's unique role as a dynamic, adaptive component of human life, capable of enriching and transforming individual and collective experiences. • Art shapes human experience across biological, behavioral, and cultural levels. • Relational frame theory explains the symbolic and transformative meaning of art. • Metacontingencies guide art's role in cultural evolution and social cohesion. • Art creates opportunities for adaptive and meaningful responses to human suffering. • Functional contextualism provides a novel framework for analyzing artistic practices.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contextual Behavioral ScienceSame topicAesthetic Perception and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207