The effects of formal order and spatial content on reasoning in three dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T his study investigates the effects of formal order and spatial content on reasoning in three dimensions in view of the Formal Rules theory and the Mental Models theory of spatial reasoning. Twenty‐six subjects solved 144 spatial deductive problems that varied by the formal order of the entities (referential order, referential continuity) and the spatial content (dimension, orientation, and direction). There were two dependant variables: the correct responses and their response times. The number of mental models and the formal derivations underlying the deductions allowed comparison of opposite predictions made by the Formal Rules theory and the Mental Models theory of spatial reasoning. The results overwhelmingly supported the Mental Models theory's predictions. The effects of referential order showed that problems yielding two possible mental models were significantly more difficult than problems based on one mental model, although the former problems involved a shorter formal derivation than the latter. The effects of referential continuity also generalized the Mental Models theory's prediction to reasoning in all three dimensions. The effects of referential continuity showed that problems that required independent layouts in memory were reliably more difficult than problems that allowed the continuous integration of the entities in a mental model. We obtained these results despite the fact that the former condition required a shorter formal derivation than the latter. The effects of spatial content were also reliable despite the fact that the formal derivations were the same across spatial content. Thus, spatial deductions were significantly easier to make in 1D than in 2D and in 2D than 3D. Deductions were also significantly easier to make from left to right along the horizontal axis of a mental model, and from top to bottom along the vertical axis rather than from the respective opposite directions. The effects of spatial content suggest that mental models reproduce spatial relations relative to reference frames.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".