MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sight Unseen: An Exploration of Conscious and Unconscious Vision

2006· article· en· W2006188259 on OpenAlex
Sharon Kuritzky

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHallucinations in medical conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSightUnconscious mindPsychologyConsciousnessCognitive psychologyCognitive sciencePsychoanalysisAstronomyNeurosciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sight Unseen: An Exploration of Conscious and Unconscious Vision Melvin A. Goodale, PhD, FRCS, and A. David Milner, PhD. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004. ISBN: 0-19-851052-7, $37.50. Scope: In this 135-page book, the reader is introduced to a young woman who lost her sight in a tragic accident 15 years ago. We follow her extensive neuropsychologic evaluation and progress, woven into the authors' theory of a dual visual system. “Dee” has lost the ability to recognize shape and form, yet she retains the ability to act on what she sees (picking up a coffee cup, ambulating). The authors postulate a system for action that is separate from a system for conscious vision. They proceed through testing and comparison with patients with opposite defects, concluding with support from newly available neuroimaging studies (functional MRI). Color plates give brilliant examples of face recognition, along with anatomic correlation of areas under discussion. The chapters are in narrative form, interspersed with boxes and figures that detail the neuroscientific principles. One gets the sense this is a work in progress, as advances in neuroscience allow confirmation or refutation of the proposed theories. Strengths: The book can be understood without extensive scientific or neurologic background. The narrative style is appealing and conveys the authors' excitement about their topic. This book is written by consummate teachers with the ability to pass on their delight to their students. Weaknesses: There is excessive repetition, more than is needed to get the points across. One wonders if this isn't the result of expanding a monograph into a book. Recommended audience: Anyone who is fascinated by brain function will enjoy this read. The text is appropriate reading for physicians, neuropsychologists, psychotherapists, and family members of patients with cognitive visual dysfunction. This book should be read by all ophthalmology residents to broaden their perspective and also teach them that there is still a lot to be learned about how and what we see. Critical appraisal: The authors have spectacular credentials: Goodale is Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada; Milner is Professor of Applied Psychology University of Durham, Queen's Campus, United Kingdom. They began to work together over 30 years ago in St. Andrews, Scotland. This book puts a human touch on their years of research in cognitive vision. It reminds us that there is much to be learned from our patients, those individuals who must live with the visual problems we diagnose. Sharon Kuritzky, MD Amherst, NY

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.288 · 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