MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7143735199 · doi:10.71465/ajainn245

AI and Neural Networks in Modern Art: Generating Creative Content

2021· article· W7143735199 on OpenAlex
Alex Johnson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Neural Networks · 2021
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarArtificial neural networkRealmAdversarial systemApplications of artificial intelligenceDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and neural networks into the realm of modern art is opening new possibilities for the creation of innovative and thought-provoking artwork. Neural networks, particularly generative models such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), have shown great promise in producing creative content that challenges traditional concepts of artistry. This article explores the use of AI and neural networks in modern art, focusing on how these technologies are used to generate unique pieces of art, the role of machine learning in the creative process, and the implications of AI in the future of artistic expression. Additionally, the article discusses the potential benefits and challenges of using AI in art creation and its impact on the traditional art industry.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.312
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