Factors underlying inter-observer agreement in gaze patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In viewing an image or real-world scene, different observers may exhibit different viewing patterns. This is evidently due to a variety of different factors, involving both bottom-up and top-down processing. In the literature addressing prediction of visual saliency, agreement in gaze patterns across observers is often quantified according to a measure of inter-observer congruency (IOC). Intuitively, common viewership patterns may be expected to diagnose certain image qualities including the capacity for an image to draw attention, or perceptual qualities of an image relevant to applications in human computer interaction, visual design and other domains. Moreover, there is value in determining the extent to which different factors contribute to inter-observer variability, and corresponding dependence on the type of content being viewed. In this paper, we assess the extent to which different types of features contribute to variability in viewing patterns across observers. This is accomplished in considering correlation between image derived features and IOC values, and based on the capacity for more complex feature sets to predict IOC based on a regression model. Experimental results demonstrate the value of different feature types for predicting IOC. These results also establish the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up information in driving gaze and provide new insight into predictive analysis for gaze behavior associated with perceptual characteristics of images.
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 | 0.011 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".