Architecture-Level Requirements Specification.
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
We studied the effect of tactile double simultaneous stimulation (DSS) within and between hands to examine spatial coding of touch at the fingers. Participants performed a go/no-go task to detect a tactile stimulus delivered to one target finger (e.g., right index), stimulated alone or with a concurrent non-target finger, either on the same hand (e.g., right middle finger) or on the other hand (e.g., left index finger=homologous; left middle finger=non-homologous). Across blocks we also changed the unseen hands posture (both hands palm down, or one hand rotated palm-up). When both hands were palm-down DSS interference effects emerged both within and between hands, but only when the non-homologous finger served as non-target. This suggests a clear segregation between the fingers of each hand, regardless of finger side. By contrast, when one hand was palm-up interference effects emerged only within hand, whereas between hands DSS interference was considerably reduced or absent. Thus, between hands interference was clearly affected by changes in hands posture. Taken together, these findings provide behavioral evidence in humans for multiple spatial coding of touch during tactile DSS at the fingers. In particular, they confirm the existence of representational stages of touch that distinguish between body-regions more than body-sides. Moreover, they show that the availability of tactile stimulation side becomes prominent when postural update is required.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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