The shifting appearance/disappearance of holographic images and the dynamic ontology of perceptual and cognitive processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The French philosopher M Merleau-Ponty captured the dynamic of perception with his idea of the intertwining of perceiver and perceived. Light is what links them. In the case of holographic images, not only is spatial and colour perception the pure product of light, but this light information is always in the process of self-construction with our eyes, according to our movements and the point of view adopted. According to the aesthetic reception of a work of art, Holographic images vary greatly from those of cinema, photography and even every kind of digital 3D animation. This particular image's status truly makes perceptually apparent the "co-emergence" of light and our gaze. But holography never misleads us with respect to the precarious nature of our perceptions. We have no illusion as to the limits of our empirical understanding of the perceived reality. Holography, like our knowledge of the visible, thus brings to light the phenomenon of reality's "co-constitution" and contributes to a dynamic ontology of perceptual and cognitive processes . The cognitivist Francico Varela defines this as the paradigm of enaction , i which I will adapt and apply to the appearance/disappearance context of holographic images to bring out their affinities on a metaphorical level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".