MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049058829 · doi:10.1159/000121485

Sensory and Motor Conflict in Motion Sickness

2008· article· en· W2049058829 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion sicknessSensory systemMotion (physics)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeurosciencePredictabilityMotion perceptionCommunicationCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligencePerceptionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motion sickness occurs in a wide variety of circumstances involving real or apparent motion, many of them novel and man-made. Significantly, voluntary body movements rarely result in symptoms, and the likelihood of motion sickness is greatly reduced by having control of the vehicle in which one is riding. The unifying theory of Reason [1978] proposes that motion sickness results when there is a mismatch between predicted and actual sensory inputs. Hence, the less predictable the sensory input (because it results from an externally imposed motion, or from motion which results in errors of neural transduction), the more likely that motion sickness will develop. With continuing exposure, predictability increases and adaptation to motion sickness occurs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it