Seeing Double and Depth with Wheatstone's Stereograms
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
Charles Wheatstone, in his classic paper on the invention of the stereoscope, concluded "... objects whose pictures do not fall on corresponding points of the two retinae may still appear single" (1838 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 128 384). Soon after, Ernst Brücke, Alexandre Prévost, David Brewster, Joseph Towne, and Joseph LeConte all published disagreements with this conclusion. LeConte's objections were most frequent and most prolonged. To understand the basis of the disagreements, we conducted three experiments using Wheatstone's original stereograms and found that most stereograms produced depth perception with diplopia, which partially explains the consistency among his critics' conclusions. Most of the criticism at variance with Wheatstone's conclusion was based on research conducted outside Germany. We argue that LeConte's lack of knowledge of the German literature on vision research prevented him from considering investigating Wheatstone's experiment with a stereogram having a smaller disparity.
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) | 0.000 | 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