MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maniatis's Arguments about Impossibilities and Rigging in Hammad et al. (2008): the Importance of Pizlo (2008)

2010· review· en· W2058075029 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

VenueSeeing and Perceiving · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionPerspective (graphical)Argument (complex analysis)Point (geometry)EpistemologyLandmarkPhilosophyComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyGeometryCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lydia Maniatis (2009) adroitly argues our theories of a perspective illusion to do with angles are rigged in favour of our conclusions. Nice point. She develops useful alternative accounts of our illusion. However, her rigging argument involves the Bishop Berkeley induction problem. In response, we point out 2D features can specify 3D shapes. Counter to her induction problem, we argue specification requires a 3D environment of a particular, restricted kind, resulting in meaningful 2D features, as in the landmark Pizlo (2008) treatise.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.309 · 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