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
Categorization of scenes is a fundamental process of human vision that allows us to efficiently and rapidly analyze our surroundings. Several studies have explored the processes underlying human scene categorization, but they have focused on processing global image information. In this study, we present both psychophysical and computational experiments that investigate the role of local versus global image information in scene categorization. In a first set of human experiments, categorization performance is tested when only local or only global image information is present. Our results suggest that humans rely on local, region-based information as much as on global, configural information. In addition, humans seem to integrate both types of information for intact scene categorization. In a set of computational experiments, human performance is compared to two state-of-the-art computer vision approaches that have been shown to be psychophysically plausible and that model either local or global information. In addition to the influence of local versus global information, in a second series of experiments, we investigated the effect of color on the categorization performance of both the human observers and the computational model. Analysis of the human data suggests that color is an additional channel of perceptual information that leads to higher categorization results at the expense of increased reaction times in the intact condition. However, it does not affect reaction times when only local information is present. When color is removed, the employed computational model follows the relative performance decrease of human observers for each scene category and can thus be seen as a perceptually plausible model for human scene categorization based on local image information.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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