MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618212657 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x16000315

The “item” as a window into how prior knowledge guides visual search

2017· letter· en· W2618212657 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Wu, Jiaying Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindow (computing)Object (grammar)Computer scienceVisual searchBundlePsychologyCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We challenge the central idea proposed in Hulleman & Olivers (H&O) by arguing that the "item" is still useful for understanding visual search and for developing new theoretical frameworks. The "item" is a flexible unit that represents not only an individual object, but also a bundle of objects that are grouped based on prior knowledge. Uncovering how the "item" is represented based on prior knowledge is essential for advancing theories of visual search.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207