MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313793100 · doi:10.1068/p7605

Pointing to Azimuths and Elevations of Targets: Blind and Blindfolded-Sighted

2014· article· en· W2313793100 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

VenuePerception · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzimuthRowConvergence (economics)PsychologyGroup (periodic table)CommunicationComputer visionComputer scienceAudiologyMathematicsGeometryPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three groups of observers pointed to target circles in a path on the ground, in two parallel rows. Participants in one group viewed the circles and then pointed blindfolded. Those in a second group were blindfolded and then touched the circles with a stick while walking past them. Volunteers in the third group were blind adults, a diverse group, who also used a stick to detect the circles. For all three groups, as distance to the circles increased, pointing azimuths shrank and elevations increased. We suggest that directions to targets on major environmental surfaces may be appreciated similarly by the blind and sighted. We challenge the assumption that the principle of convergence to the horizon, available through vision because of the way in which visual angle decreases on the retina, is not available through touch.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.273 · 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