MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413802752 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp19074

Beach Combing - Intuition as Inquiry

2025· article· en· W4413802752 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sophia Herrington, Emma Poley, Fiona McMillan, Maevis Chamberlain

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntuitionInstinctProcess (computing)Art methodologyAestheticsVisual artsSociologyArtComputer scienceEpistemologyContemporary artPhilosophyPerformance art

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artistic inquiry is often the basis for creating a work of art, and is done intuitively for artists of all practices. Four artists will share their artistic process from initial inspiration, to research, to artistic creation. How artists approach intuitive art making is not taught in creative institutes, yet remains the backbone of the artistic process. In our own personal practices, we are able to cultivate an idea using inquiry as a vehicle for intuitive creation. Informing our process with research allows us to bring artistic creation into a structured academic setting. Through modes of learning embedded in our institution, intuitive processes have not been taught, they have been discovered and grown on our own. Each artist will speak to how their practice relates to intuitive inquiry process by answering the following: How do you think of artistic creation as a form of intuition? How do you apply your artistic instincts to your medium of choice? What inspired the specific piece of art? Explain your intuitive process used to create the artwork.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207