MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789154883 · doi:10.1177/0301006618756810

Duck Eats Rabbit: Exactly Which Type of Relational Phrase Can Disambiguate the Perception of Identical Side by Side Ambiguous Figures?

2018· article· en· W2789154883 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhrasePerceptionComputer scienceLinguisticsNatural language processingPsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many individuals cannot at first see two ambiguous figures as different interpretations simultaneously, even with effort. Here in a large sample replication, we find that the phrase "duck eats rabbit" allows those who could not see a duck and rabbit side by side to do so. In a second experiment, we show that a relational phrase "next to" that does not disambiguate the spatial position interpretation does not similarly allow the duck to be seen next to the rabbit, supporting the proposal that top-down semantic-framing can influence perception of ambiguous figures.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.297 · 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