Drawing with Divergent Perspective, Ancient and Modern
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
Before methods for drawing accurately in perspective were developed in the 15th century, many artists drew with divergent perspective. But we found that many university students draw with divergent perspective rather than with the correct convergent perspective. These experiments were designed to reveal why people tend to draw with divergent perspective. University students drew a cube and isolated edges and surfaces of a cube. Their drawings were very inaccurate. About half the students drew with divergent perspective like artists before the 15th century. Students selected a cube from a set of tapered boxes with great accuracy and were reasonably accurate in selecting the correct drawing of a cube from a set of tapered drawings. Each subject's drawing was much worse than the drawing selected as accurate. An analysis of errors in drawings of a cube and of isolated edges and surfaces of a cube revealed several factors that predispose people to draw in divergent perspective. The way these factors intrude depends on the order in which the edges of the cube are drawn.
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) | 0.002 | 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