MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091373288 · doi:10.1163/156856808784532554

Angle illusion on a picture's surface

2008· article· en· W2091373288 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

VenueSpatial Vision · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadrilateralIllusionGestalt psychologyCube (algebra)Optical illusionPerspective (graphical)Surface (topology)GeometryPsychologyOpticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer scienceCognitive psychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shapes on picture surfaces are not seen accurately (Arnheim, 1954). In particular, if they depict 3-D forms, angles between lines on a picture surface are misperceived. To test four theories of the misperception, subjects estimated acute and obtuse internal angles of quadrilaterals. Each quadrilateral was shown alone or as part of a drawing of a cube. The drawings showed the tops of the cubes, tilted at various angles around a horizontal axis. This generated different acute and obtuse angles in the drawings. Compared to a quadrilateral on its own, judgments of the acute and obtuse angles in the cube drawings were biased towards 90 degrees . The bias was present over a wide range of intermediate tilts. The results support a perspective convergence theory and run counter to 'Extreme Foreshortening', Gestalt and Cognitive theories.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · 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