MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137064392 · doi:10.1080/17588928.2012.748021

Long range grouping mechanisms for object perception

2013· letter· en· W2137064392 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

VenueCognitive Neuroscience · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusory contoursPsychologyPerceptionCognitive psychologyObject (grammar)StereoscopyDepth perceptionRange (aeronautics)Interpolation (computer graphics)Visual cortexModalCommunicationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionCognitive scienceOptical illusionNeuroscienceComputer scienceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The case made by Kogo and Wagemans for border ownership of surface boundaries to explain modal completion of illusory contours is well argued, and is compatible with psychophysical and physiological research on configural interactions with stereoscopic depth processing. However, it is important to contextualize such a mechanism of surface interpolation with related object grouping mechanisms in visual cortex, such as those not necessarily related to depth. Additionally, it's worth considering how the BOWN model can be generalized beyond Kanizsa shapes to more complex volumetric surface interpolations.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.231 · 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