Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often said that picture perception has dual character, which makes looking at pictures fundamentally different from looking at things like trees, chairs, and people. This duality can be explained in variety of ways, but it is most commonly explained in terms of competing perceptions of space.1 That is, it is frequently asserted that the perception of pictures (at least those depicting objects in space) involves two distinct impressions of space-the two-dimensional picture surface and the three-dimensional depicted scene-that are somehow in conflict, or inconsistent, with one another. For instance, R. L. Gregory contends that, visually, pictures have an extraordinary double reality: flat objects seen as flat, and at the same time as quite different three-dimensional objects in different space.2 Similarly, James J. Gibson claims that a picture is both surface in its own right and display of information about something else. The viewer cannot help but see both, yet this is paradox, for the two kinds of awareness are discrepant.3 In much of the psychological literature on the subject, this perceptual conflict is generally understood as function of conflicting cues. When we look at picture, so the story goes, there are cues that indicate that we are looking at flat surface, and also cues that indicate that we are looking at three-dimensional scene. These cues suggest two mutually incompatible impressions of the object we are looking at (the picture), which our visual system is able to resolve in one way or another. The end result is that we perceive both the two-dimensional surface of the picture and three-dimensional pictorial space simultaneously, despite the inherent contradiction between the two.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".