MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119574220 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0200

Learning to represent visual input

2009· review· en· W2119574220 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

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceEvolutionary biologyCognitive sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the central problems in computational neuroscience is to understand how the object-recognition pathway of the cortex learns a deep hierarchy of nonlinear feature detectors. Recent progress in machine learning shows that it is possible to learn deep hierarchies without requiring any labelled data. The feature detectors are learned one layer at a time and the goal of the learning procedure is to form a good generative model of images, not to predict the class of each image. The learning procedure only requires the pairwise correlations between the activations of neuron-like processing units in adjacent layers. The original version of the learning procedure is derived from a quadratic 'energy' function but it can be extended to allow third-order, multiplicative interactions in which neurons gate the pairwise interactions between other neurons. A technique for factoring the third-order interactions leads to a learning module that again has a simple learning rule based on pairwise correlations. This module looks remarkably like modules that have been proposed by both biologists trying to explain the responses of neurons and engineers trying to create systems that can recognize objects.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.199 · 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