Early studies of binocular and stereoscopic vision<sup>1</sup>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The revolution in binocular vision (in the 1830s) was occasioned by Wheatstone's invention and application of the stereoscope to demonstrate depth from retinal disparity. The stereoscope, perhaps more than any other instrument, ushered in the era of experimentation to vision. It fulfilled the scientific desire to examine binocular vision by observation and experiment. The stereoscope is a simple optical device that presents slightly different figures to each eye. If these figures have appropriate horizontal displacements or disparities then depth is seen. Wheatstone achieved for space perception what Newton had for color vision: the phenomena could be removed from their object base. Newton's decomposition of white light into its spectral components removed the perception of color from the colored objects that naturally conveyed it. Wheatstone's decomposition of stereoscopic depth into its disparate projections to each eye removed the perception of depth from the solid objects that naturally conveyed it. Color and depth could be examined in the laboratory, and the methods of the natural sciences could be applied to their investigation.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it