A Light from Within: Aesthetic Judgments and Emotional Responses to Viewing Religious Stained-Glass Windows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aesthetic psychology is the study of aesthetic objects and scenes in our world and how different factors of our experiences - be they personal to the individual observer or facets of the aesthetic object or scene itself - influence our responses and judgments. Such objects include landscapes, paintings, architecture, and even consumer products. One as-yet unexplored medium of aesthetic research is stained-glass windows, which present the unique opportunity to explore how artificial and natural aesthetic experiences interact to create one entire experience. The purpose of the present thesis is to introduce the potential of this research focus by examining how individual differences - namely, expertise and religiosity - and feature-specific factors - namely, visual complexity and light variation - influence aesthetic judgments. In Experiment 1, we examine how experts differ from non-experts in their evaluations and emotional and physiological responses to stained-glass windows. In Experiment 2, we explore the influence of light variation on aesthetic judgments and preferences in religious and non-religious individuals. The findings from both investigations indicate the impact of bottom-up factors on aesthetic evaluations and emotional responses, while the influences of individual factors require further exploration. By shedding light on these interactions, our research serves as an initial step forward into exploring the potential of stained-glass in aesthetic research as a unique combination of aesthetic features.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".