MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982614795 · doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000020

Ecological Aspects of Mental Rotation Around the Vertical and Horizontal Axis

2010· article· en· W1982614795 on OpenAlex
Christian Battista, Michael Peters

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

VenueJournal of Individual Differences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVertical axisHorizontal axisHorizontal and verticalRotation (mathematics)Mental rotationContext (archaeology)Orientation (vector space)GeometryCube (algebra)Long axisGeodesyPsychologyPhysicsGeologyMathematicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rotation of both natural and man-made objects most commonly requires rotation around the vertical rather than the horizontal axis because it is relatively rare that we need to rotate, e.g., trees, mountains, chairs or vehicles around their horizontal axis in order to match images to their canonical orientation. Waszak, Drewing, and Mausfeld (2005) demonstrated the importance of a gravitationally defined vertical axis and the visual context within which objects occur, when performing mental rotations. We extended their findings in a between-subject design by asking 406 subjects to rotate wireframe cube figures around either the vertical axis or around the horizontal axis. Both male and female subjects performed significantly better when rotating objects around the vertical axis. Males performed better than females in both conditions, and there was no interaction between axis of rotation and sex.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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