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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive models propose a hierarchy of parallel processing stages in face perception, and functional neuroimaging shows a network of regions involved in face processing. Reflecting this, acquired prosopagnosia is not a single entity but a family of disorders with different anatomic lesions and different functional deficits. One classic distinction is between an apperceptive variant, in which there is impaired perception of facial structure, and an associative/amnestic variant, in which perception is relatively intact, with subsequent problems matching perception to facial memories, because of either disconnection or loss of those memories. These disorders also have to be distinguished from people-specific amnesia, a multimodal impairment, and prosop-anomia, in which familiarity with faces is preserved but access to names is disrupted. These different disorders can be conceived as specific deficits at different processing stages in cognitive models, and suggests that these functional stages may have distinct neuroanatomic substrates. It remains to be seen whether a similar anatomic and functional variability is present in developmental prosopagnosia.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it