MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969771897 · doi:10.1080/17588920903506478

Dorsal stream areas process action semantics

2010· article· en· W1969771897 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Neuroscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSemantics (computer science)DorsumVision for perception and vision for actionAction (physics)PsychologySemantic memoryPerceptionProcess (computing)Action semanticsNeuroscienceCommunicationCognitive scienceComputer scienceCognitive psychologyVisual perceptionCognitionDenotational semanticsBiologyOperational semanticsProgramming languageAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Evidence from recent studies investigating the functional and neural mechanisms supporting action semantics, i.e., the knowledge of how to use objects in a functionally appropriate manner, suggests that semantic processing for action is not restricted to high-level perceptual processing in the ventral stream but is directly associated with activation in dorsal areas, i.e., the motor system, and motor performance. These findings argue for a distributed and interactive account of action semantics and against functionally independent processing in dorsal and ventral stream areas.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.318 · 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