MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077276262 · doi:10.1163/22134808-000s0007

Reference frame conflict: Blindfolding and the crossed-hands deficit

2013· article· en· W2077276262 on OpenAlexaff
David I. Shore, Michelle L. Cadieux

Bibliographic record

VenueMultisensory Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRepresentation (politics)Cognitive psychologyFrame of referenceReference frameFrame (networking)CommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crossed-hands temporal order judgment deficit highlights the automatic remapping of tactile stimuli from a body-surface representation into a body-independent representation. In considering the source of the deficit two potentially complementary ideas have emerged — the transformation could be slowed by the awkward posture (Yamamoto and Kitazawa, 2001) or it may take time to resolve the conflict between the internal and external frames of reference (Shore et al., 2002). We manipulated the availability of visual information across four experiments varying in their response demands. When observers responded with the hand that was stimulated (as opposed to with the foot pedals) there was a significant reduction in the size of the crossed-hands deficit when vision was prevented by blindfolding. These data support a conflict resolution account of the deficit over a slower remapping account.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.398
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.058 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultisensory ResearchSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207