Disparity and Shading Cues Cooperate for Surface Interpolation
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
In two experiments, we tested whether disparity and shading cues cooperated for surface interpolation. Observers adjusted a probe dot to/lie on a surface specified either by a sparse disparity field, a continuous stereo shading or monocular shading gradient, or both cues. Observers' adjustments were very consistent with disparity information but their adjustments were much more variable with shading information. However, observers significantly improved their precision when both cues were present, relative to when only disparity information was present. These results cannot be explained by assuming that separate modules analyze disparity and shading information, even if observers optimally combined these cues. Rather, we attribute this improvement to a process through which the shading gradient constrains the disparity field in regions where disparities cannot be directly measured. This cooperative process may be based on the natural covariation existing between these cues produced by the retinal projection of smooth surfaces.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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