Some plane truths about pictures: notes on Wagemans, Lamote, and van Gool (1997)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wagemans, Lamote, and van Gool (1997) have attempted to show that observers can determine the geometric equivalence of shapes seen in perspective, or in projective transformation. Artifacts of measurement in their procedures forestall such a conclusion. Their experiment fails to control projective properties adequately, and also confounds the transformations of shear and compression. Their evidence that observers can discern the equivalence of shapes under perspective can be reconstrued as evidence for sensitivity to different, unrelated properties: to the plane compression that follows from the depiction of flat shapes in perspective, and to gross differences in shape not specific to projective geometry. An improved set of procedures is proposed for the measurement of stimuli in the study of visual shape constancy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".