MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050452044 · doi:10.1068/p7498

Simple 3-D Stimulus for Motion Parallax and its Simulation

2013· letter· en· W2050452044 on OpenAlexaff
Hiroshi Ono, Yevgen Chornenkyy, Sarah D’Amour

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallaxStimulus (psychology)Simple (philosophy)Computer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer graphics (images)Cognitive psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulation of a given stimulus situation should produce the same perception as the original. Rogers et al (2009 Perception 38 907-911) simulated Wheeler's (1982, PhD thesis, Rutgers University, NJ) motion parallax stimulus and obtained quite different perceptions. Wheeler's observers were unable to reliably report the correct direction of depth, whereas Rogers's were. With three experiments we explored the possible reasons for the discrepancy. Our results suggest that Rogers was able to see depth from the simulation partly due to his experience seeing depth with random dot surfaces.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207