Two historical strands in studying visual direction<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 How we see the direction of an object has been discussed since the time of Aristotle. Despite this early beginning, there are two strands of conflicting ideas on visual direction that remain to this day. The first strand is based on observation or phenomenology and generated the idea that the midpoint between the two eyes is the reference point for visual direction. The second strand is related to geometry or optics and generated the idea that the reference point is an eye. To discuss this issue, we focus on visual directions of stimuli that stimulate both foveas. The observational strand has provided ample evidence to support their idea that the midpoint between the eyes is the reference point, yet the idea that the reference point resides in an eye still persists. We examine how the two strands have evolved since antiquity and speculate as to why the second strand persists. We then offer an intuitive explanation for the idea generated by the first strand in order to counter the persistence of the idea generated by the second.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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