MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103666701 · doi:10.1167/9.3.5

Saliency, attention, and visual search: An information theoretic approach

2009· article· en· W2103666701 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

VenueJournal of Vision · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFixation (population genetics)ComputationPremiseVisual cortexCoding (social sciences)Artificial intelligenceVariety (cybernetics)Computational modelTheoretical computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningNeurosciencePsychologyAlgorithmMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proposal for saliency computation within the visual cortex is put forth based on the premise that localized saliency computation serves to maximize information sampled from one's environment. The model is built entirely on computational constraints but nevertheless results in an architecture with cells and connectivity reminiscent of that appearing in the visual cortex. It is demonstrated that a variety of visual search behaviors appear as emergent properties of the model and therefore basic principles of coding and information transmission. Experimental results demonstrate greater efficacy in predicting fixation patterns across two different data sets as compared with competing models.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · 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