From Dichoptic to Dichotic: Historical Contrasts between Binocular Vision and Binaural Hearing
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
Phenomena involving vision with two eyes have been commented upon for several thousand years whereas those concerned with hearing with two ears have a much more recent history. Studies of binocular vision and binaural hearing are contrasted with respect to the singleness of the percept, experimental manipulations of dichoptic and dichotic stimuli, eye and ear dominance, spatial localisation, and the instruments used to stimulate the paired organs. One of the principal phenomena that led to studies of dichotic hearing was dichoptic colour mixing. There was similar disagreement regarding whether colours or sounds could be combined when presented to different paired organs. Direction and distance in visual localisation were analysed before those for auditory localisation, partly due to difficulties in controlling the stimuli. Instruments for investigating binocular vision, like the stereoscope and pseudoscope, were invented before those for binaural hearing, like the stethophone and pseudophone.
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) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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