Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a large and a small concentric square alternate in succession with a blank separating the two, observers often report seeing one or more distinct illusory squares (or “ghosts”) in the blank field. To explore this “Ghost Illusion”, squares with black edges and white backgrounds were used, ranging between 1.0 and 3.5 degrees in size. Each square was displayed for 80 ms; the two displays alternated 5 times, with a white screen (duration 125 ms) between each display. Observers were informed that more than one square size would appear. They were instructed to count the total number of squares differing in size that appeared, and then respond using the numbered keys. Several experiments were carried out, with twelve observers in each, and 36 trials per observer. The first three experiments tested a range of size ratios (2:1–4:1). The strength of illusion decreased only slightly as the size ratio increased. Two, three and four squares were perceived in 31%, 49% and 16% of trials for size ratio 2:1, in 37%, 39%, and 13% of trials for ratio 3:1, and in 32%, 33%, 18% of trials for ratio 4:1, respectively. Similar results were obtained when the thickness of the edges was tripled for ratio 2:1 and when the colors of the edges were distinct (red and green) for ratio 4:1. These results therefore show that the strength of the illusion persists across size ratio, edge thickness, and color.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".