MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522890167 · doi:10.1177/2041669516669155

How Heavy Is an Illusory Length?

2016· article· en· W2522890167 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

Venuei-Perception · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersErasmus+Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekUniversiteit Utrecht
KeywordsIllusionPerceptionApparent SizePsychologyOptical illusionObject (grammar)FeelingCognitive psychologySocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perception of object properties, such as size and weight, can be subject to illusions. Could a visual size illusion influence perceived weight? Here, we tested whether the size-weight illusion occurs when lifting two physically identical but perceptually different objects, by using an illusion of size. Participants judged the weight and length of 11 to 17 cm brass bars with equal density to which cardboard arrowheads were attached to create a Müller-Lyer illusion. We found that these stimuli induced an illusion in which the bar that was visually perceived as being shorter was also perceived as feeling heavier. In fact, a 5-mm increase in illusory length corresponded to a decrease in illusory weight of 15 g.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.227 · 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