Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye movement is a rich modality that can provide us with a window into a person's mind. In a typical human-human interaction, we can get information about the behavioral state of the others by examining their eye movements. For instance, when a poker player looks into the eyes of his opponent, he looks for any indication of bluffing by verifying the dynamics of the eye movements. However, the information extracted from the eyes is not the only source of information we get in a human-human interaction and other modalities, such as speech or gesture, help us infer the behavioral state of the others. Most of the time this fusion of information refines our decisions and helps us better infer people's cognitive and behavioral activity based on their actions. In this paper, we develop a probabilistic framework to fuse different sources of information to infer the ongoing task in a visual search activity given the viewer's eye movement data. We propose to use a dynamic programming method called token passing in an eye-typing application to reveal what the subject is typing during a search process by observing his direction of gaze during the execution of the task. Token passing is a computationally simple technique that allows us to fuse higher order constraints in the inference process and build models dynamically so we can have unlimited number of hypotheses. In the experiments we examine the effect of higher order information, in the form of a lexicon dictionary, on the task recognition accuracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".