MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1614266390 · doi:10.1167/15.12.1369

Search in actively organized spaces

2015· article· en· W1614266390 on OpenAlexaff
Grayden J. F. Solman, Alan Kingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Position (finance)Property (philosophy)Computer scienceStability (learning theory)Order (exchange)Object (grammar)Visual searchData scienceCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionPsychologyMachine learningEngineeringBusinessEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of memory in search has emerged from the observation that real world environments possess an inherent temporal stability, whereby an object’s past position is often predictive of its future position. Much work has explored the various factors which encourage or discourage observers from leveraging this stability to help guide search. A related, but comparatively understudied property of real search environments is that the arrangement of objects is frequently produced and actively modified by the searchers themselves. Here we introduce a novel task designed to study this interplay between organization and search. We demonstrate how order emerges in search environments through both incidental and deliberate behaviours, how the sequential statistics of target streams come to be reflected in spatial groupings, and how individual differences in organizational tendencies are related to performance. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207