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 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

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.104
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