The Backward Inclination of a Surface Defined by Empirical Corresponding Points
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
Three experiments were conducted to investigate whether a locus of binocular correspondence extends eccentrically from the vertical horopter. In experiment 1, we investigated whether the backward inclination of the vertical horopter was manifested in the angle at which readers prefer to orient the page. All observers preferred a page inclined backwards to any other orientation. This backward inclination was less than predicted from previous psychophysical reports, however. In experiment 2, we investigated the extent of binocular correspondence, defined by minimal apparent interocular horizontal motion, in the central 24 deg of the binocular field. Our data define a planar surface inclined top-away from the observer as a locus from which psychophysical corresponding points are stimulated. In experiment 3, we measured vertical adjustments required to eliminate apparent vertical motion. Together, the pattern of results from experiments 2 and 3 is most consistent with a planar surface, inclined top-away from the observer. This is consistent with Helmholtz's account of the backward inclination of the vertical horopter and expands the locus of zero horizontal disparity from a single line in the median plane to eccentric loci extending at least +/- 12 deg in the central binocular field.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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