Stereoscopic perception of real depths at large distances
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been no direct examination of stereoscopic depth perception at very large observation distances and depths. We measured perceptions of depth magnitude at distances where it is frequently reported without evidence that stereopsis is non-functional. We adapted methods pioneered at distances up to 9 m by R. S. Allison, B. J. Gillam, and E. Vecellio (2009) for use in a 381-m-long railway tunnel. Pairs of Light Emitting Diode (LED) targets were presented either in complete darkness or with the environment lit as far as the nearest LED (the observation distance). We found that binocular, but not monocular, estimates of the depth between pairs of LEDs increased with their physical depths up to the maximum depth separation tested (248 m). Binocular estimates of depth were much larger with a lit foreground than in darkness and increased as the observation distance increased from 20 to 40 m, indicating that binocular disparity can be scaled for much larger distances than previously realized. Since these observation distances were well beyond the range of vertical disparity and oculomotor cues, this scaling must rely on perspective cues. We also ran control experiments at smaller distances, which showed that estimates of depth and distance correlate poorly and that our metric estimation method gives similar results to a comparison method under the same conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it