Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Freestanding sculpture can be scored for abstraction using order scales such as the three-rank ‘realistic,’ ‘mixed,’ and ‘abstract.’ Subjective but invaluable, the ranks support ordering but not arithmetic. Numeric limitations can be addressed via information-theoretic metrics that measure collective uncertainty about a sculpture; to this end 60 participants view 25 images of sculpture via an internet questionnaire. They (i) score each depicted object and (ii) type a caption stating what impression the object evokes. Captions for the image are simplified to their English simple subject, sorted into classification categories and counted. A metric converts an image’s categories and counts into viewers’ uncertainty. The investigation examines four-rank and five-rank scales plus metrics CC (category count), H (entropy) and EC ≡ 2 H (equalized category count). Medians of scores or uncertainties reduce variability as appropriate. Comparisons of scores vs uncertainties show the two generally correlate well. Results also highlight inherent design tradeoffs. Scale/metric pairings affect both ranks (which should be statistically distinct) and rank/uncertainty correlations. Two good combinations are [four-rank; median CC ] and [five-rank; median EC ]. Metric CC is easy to compute and correlates slightly better than EC , although the latter supports five evenly separated ranks. Shifting focus to image scatterplots, the pair [four-rank median score; CC ] yields a very strong correlation. Once uncertainties are linked to ranks to ‘calibrate’ them, one gets a quantitative sense of the rank order scale. The augmented framework offers the speed and ease of scoring along with valid numeric estimates of uncertainty unavailable from ranks alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lyon et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: