MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025673628 · doi:10.1080/13506280444000599

The use of visual information in natural scenes

2005· article· en· W2025673628 on OpenAlexaff
Maxine V. Mccotter, Frédéric Gosselin, Paul T. Sowden, Philippe G. Schyns

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Cognition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScene statisticsPsychologyArtificial intelligenceNatural (archaeology)Computer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Computer sciencePerceptionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the complexity and diversity of natural scenes, humans are very fast and accurate at identifying basic-level scene categories. In this paper we develop a new technique (based on Bubbles, Gosselin & Schyns, 2001a; Schyns, Bonnar, & Gosselin, 2002) to determine some of the information requirements of basic-level scene categorizations. Using 2400 scenes from an established scene database (Oliva & Torralba, 2001), the algorithm randomly samples the Fourier coefficients of the phase spectrum. Sampled Fourier coefficients retain their original phase while the phase of nonsampled coefficients is replaced with that of white noise. Observers categorized the stimuli into 8 basic-level categories. The location of the sampled Fourier coefficients leading to correct categorizations was recorded per trial. Statistical analyses revealed the major scales and orientations of the phase spectrum that observers used to distinguish scene categories.

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)0.007
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations59
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisual CognitionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207