MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025991255 · doi:10.1068/p6130

Binocular Vision: Defining the Historical Directions

2009· article· en· W2025991255 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPtolemy's table of chordsBrewsterEleventhKeplerObject (grammar)HistoryBinocular visionPhilosophyEpistemologyOpticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsComputer visionClassicsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ever since Kepler described the image-forming properties of the eye (400 years ago) there has been a widespread belief, which remains to this day, that an object seen with one eye is always seen where it is. Predictions made by Ptolemy in the first century, Alhazen in the eleventh, and Wells in the eighteenth, and supported by Towne, Hering, and LeConte in the nineteenth century, however, are contrary to this claimed veridicality. We discuss how among eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British researchers, particularly Porterfield, Brewster, and Wheatstone, the erroneous idea continued and also why observations made by Wells were neither understood nor appreciated. Finally, we discuss recent data, obtained with a new method, that further support Wells's predictions and which show that a distinction between headcentric and relative direction tasks is needed to appreciate the predictions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.297 · 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