Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. There is psychophysical support for a phase model of visual processing involving four channels, each optimally sensitive to one of the following four phase relations; + cosine, − cosine, +sine and − sine. Neurophysiology suggests either an even distribution of neuronal phase responses or else a sine/cosine phase dichotomy that is dependent on spatial bandwidth. We investigated whether there were labelled lines for phase; this can be thought of as testing a strong version of the four channel phase model in which each of the above phases can be discriminated at threshold. Methods. Our stimulus comprised Gaussian weighted (space and time) patches of either Gabor or edge/bar stimuli for which we measure simultaneously detection and phase identification to determine if phase identification can be accomplished at detection threshold (hence labelled lines). We used two bandwidths of Gabor and varied both absolute and relative phase. Results. Subjects could not reliably discriminate at threshold Gabors of even symmetry from Gabors of odd symmetry nor could they discriminate bar from edge stimuli. Conclusion. While there may be labelled lines for polarity there are not labelled lines for bars vs edges. The smallest discriminable step we can reliably make across the phase spectrum at threshold is 180°.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.018 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".