MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126335121

Drop, then fade

2024· other· en· W7126335121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guang Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenBU (Boston University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMusicalPaintingInterpretation (philosophy)HumanityHarmony (color)PoetrySensibilityHappening
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept behind "Drop, then Fade" draws inspiration from the convergence of "negative space" found in traditional Chinese art forms, such as painting, calligraphy, and seal cutting, and the evocative paintings of contemporary Chinese-Canadian artist Matthew Wong. In traditional Chinese painting, the concept of "negative space" is integral, symbolizing the harmony between humanity and nature, accentuating the subject, and conveying a sense of boundless space to evoke profound artistic depth. During a recent visit to the Museum of Fine Arts, I was deeply moved by Wong's works, which Raffi Khatchadourian eloquently describes as portraying "solitary figures, set adrift" amidst nature's overwhelming presence—whether depicted riding in a car at dusk or navigating through swathes of paint that seem to stretch endlessly. A discernible dialogue emerges between Wong's paintings and the concept of "negative space." "Drop, then Fade" delves into the musical interpretation of negative space, exploring how it intricately interacts with other elements—sometimes leaving them adrift, solitary, or overflowing, akin to ink drops diffusing into water and gradually dissipating. Within this musical framework, I integrate a poem I composed following my encounter with Wong's exhibition, adding another layer of artistic expression to the dialogue between visual and auditory media.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpenBU (Boston University)French-language works237,207