Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soft tissue "pulleys" in the orbit alter the paths of the eye muscles in a way that may simplify the brain's work in implementing Listing's law, i.e., in holding ocular torsion at zero. But Listing's law does not apply to some oculomotor systems, such as the vestibuloocular reflex (VOR), which shows a different kinematic pattern. To explain this different pattern, some authors have assumed that the pulleys must adopt a different configuration, retracting along their muscles when the eye switches from Listing's law to VOR mode. The proposed retraction has not so far been observed, although the pulleys do move in other ways. We show that the hypothetical retraction of the pulleys would not in fact explain the full kinematic pattern seen in the VOR. But this pattern can be explained entirely on the basis of pulley positions and motions that have actually been observed. If one takes into account the neural processing within the VOR, specifically the fact that the reflex is weak in the torsional dimension, then a single mode of pulley action can serve both vestibuloocular kinematics and Listing's law.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".