MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Features for Identification of Uppercase and Lowercase Letters

2008· article· en· W1999666923 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Fiset, Caroline Blais, Catherine Éthier-Majcher, Martin Arguin, Daniel N. Bub, Frédéric Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)PsychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The determination of the visual features mediating letter identification has a long-standing history in cognitive science. Researchers have proposed many sets of letter features as important for letter identification, but no such sets have yet been derived directly from empirical data. In the study reported here, we applied the Bubbles technique to reveal directly which areas at five different spatial scales are efficient for the identification of lowercase and uppercase Arial letters. We provide the first empirical evidence that line terminations are the most important features for letter identification. We propose that these small features, represented at several spatial scales, help readers to discriminate among visually similar letters.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207