MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117992627 · doi:10.1007/979-8-8688-2148-6_1

Art, Vision, and Computers

2025· book-chapter· en· W7117992627 on OpenAlexaff
James Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueApress eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Technology, and Culture
Canadian institutionsRockyview General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)Class (philosophy)Function (biology)VisualizationWindow (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It seems obvious that to be a visual artist, one should be able to see . But what does that really mean? Seeing is more than simply detecting light or being able to form images on a film or retina or computer chip. Seeing is about being able to use images to make decisions or draw conclusions. For that to happen, we have to be able to discern shapes and objects in an image. An object is something that we have a label for, and so we must not only have encountered it previously, but we must be able to characterize it somehow, not only with respect to visual characteristics but also concerning its function or class of object.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApress eBooksSame topicArt, Technology, and CultureFrench-language works237,207