MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063081660 · doi:10.1080/13576500701317758

Visual bisection of freely-viewed asymmetrical stimuli

2007· article· en· W2063081660 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

VenueLaterality Asymmetries of Body Brain and Cognition · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBisectionNumerosity adaptation effectPsychologyPerceptionCognitive psychologyVisual perceptionJudgementNeuroscienceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When performing line bisection tasks, neurologically normal individuals exhibit leftward biases. Similarly, normals also exhibit leftward biases during judgements of brightness, numerosity, and size. However, when these same judgement stimuli are visually bisected, this results in rightward bisection biases. These apparently contradictory results are complicated by the fact that bisection tasks are typically performed using single stimuli, whereas judgements of brightness, numerosity, and size are performed on pairs of stimuli. The present study examined the effects of visual bisection on pairs of stimuli. A sample of 34 undergraduate psychology volunteers exhibited leftward biases when making judgements of brightness, numerosity, and size. However, these same participants did not exhibit leftward bisection biases with the same stimuli. Instead, overall rightward bisection errors were observed. These results indicate that although these two types of tasks elicit similar perceptual biases, they are probably the result of different perceptual mechanisms.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.275 · 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