MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139651652 · doi:10.1109/5289.887455

The race to the attractor model for classifying objects

2000· article· en· W2139651652 on OpenAlexaff
Tet Yeap, G. Ferland

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterKey (lock)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceProcess (computing)Artificial neural networkObject (grammar)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionAttractorPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionMachine learningRadarMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human brain is exceptionally good at classifying objects quickly and reliably. We can recognize familiar faces even when seen from different angles, despite irrelevant clutter such as jewellery, sunglasses, new hair styles, etc. Over the years, scientists have tried to duplicate this remarkable ability using neural networks models, but without much success. In this article, we examine some of the key characteristics that make the brain such an efficient tool for object recognition. We propose mechanisms through which these characteristics can be modeled. Then, we describe a novel approach to simulating object recognition with artificial neural networks. We used the recognition process for "Uncle Brian" to demonstrate how this model captures these key characteristics and achieves reliable classification.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Instrumentation & Measurement MagazineSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207