MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1797130393 · doi:10.1002/pchj.12

View combination in recognition of 3‐<scp>D</scp> virtual reality layouts

2012· article· en· W1797130393 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePsyCh Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)Virtual realityComputer scienceStereoscopyArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)Computer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Human–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated whether a normalization model or view combination model fit the performance of scene recognition of 3-D layouts using a virtual-reality paradigm. Participants learned a layout of seven objects from two training views (e.g., 0° and 48°) by discriminating the "correct" layout from distracters. Later, they performed a discrimination task using the training views (e.g., 0° and 48°), an interpolated view (e.g., 24°), an extrapolated view (e.g., 72°), and a far view (e.g., 96°). The results showed that the interpolated view was easier to discriminate than the extrapolated view and even easier than the training views. These results extend the applicability of view combination accounts of recognition to 3-D stimuli with stereoscopic depth information.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.228 · 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