Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perception of Pearson correlation in scatterplots can be described via simple laws (Rensink & Baldridge, 2010): just noticeable difference (jnd) follows a Weber-like (linear) law, and subjective estimate follows a Fechner-like (logarithmic) law. Behavior is largely invariant to the size, shape or color of the dots (Rensink, 2014), suggesting that correlation is (or is related to) a perceptually simple property carried via spatial position. To determine if features other than spatial position can carry information in the same way, a set of "augmented stripplots" was developed for visualizing two-dimensional data. As for the case of scatterplots, the first dimension was carried by spatial position along the horizontal axis. But the second dimension was carried by a visual feature such as orientation, size, or color. Precision was measured via the jnd in correlation for two above-and-below stripplots, each 2° high x 5° wide. Accuracy was determined via reference plots with fixed upper and lower values, with a test plot adjusted to have its apparent correlation be midway between them. Twenty observers were tested in each condition. Results showed the same pattern in all conditions. For all features, precision followed a Weber-like law, with jnds increasing linearly with distance from r=1. And for all features, accuracy followed a Fechner-like law, with subjective estimates a logarithmic function of the distance from r=1. The constants of these functions were similar as well; indeed, performance for color-augmented stripplots (both red-green and blue-yellow) was somewhat more accurate than that for scatterplots. These commonalities provide further evidence that correlation perception is a general process that is both sophisticated and rapid, relying on more than superficial appearance alone (e.g., the shape of the dot cloud). They also suggest that many if not all basic visual features can effectively carry information. 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".