Local and Global Reference Frames for Environmental Spaces
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
Two experiments examined how locations in environmental spaces, which cannot be overseen from one location, are represented in memory: by global reference frames, multiple local reference frames, or orientation-free representations. After learning an immersive virtual environment by repeatedly walking a closed multisegment route, participants pointed to seven previously learned targets from different locations. Contrary to many conceptions of survey knowledge, local reference frames played an important role: Participants performed better when their body or pointing targets were aligned with the local reference frame (corridor). Moreover, most participants turned their head to align it with local reference frames. However, indications for global reference frames were also found: Participants performed better when their body or current corridor was parallel/orthogonal to a global reference frame instead of oblique. Participants showing this pattern performed comparatively better. We conclude that survey tasks can be solved based on interconnected local reference frames. Participants who pointed more accurately or quickly additionally used global reference frames.
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