MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shape from Contour: Computation and Representation

2018· review· en· W2890896355 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

VenueAnnual Review of Vision Science · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDiscriminative modelFeed forwardGestalt psychologyComputer scienceComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)CurvatureComputationClutterCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionGenerative modelGenerative grammarPerceptionObject (grammar)MathematicsAlgorithmGeometryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human visual system reliably extracts shape information from complex natural scenes in spite of noise and fragmentation caused by clutter and occlusions. A fast, feedforward sweep through ventral stream involving mechanisms tuned for orientation, curvature, and local Gestalt principles produces partial shape representations sufficient for simpler discriminative tasks. More complete shape representations may involve recurrent processes that integrate local and global cues. While feedforward discriminative deep neural network models currently produce the best predictions of object selectivity in higher areas of the object pathway, a generative model may be required to account for all aspects of shape perception. Research suggests that a successful model will account for our acute sensitivity to four key perceptual dimensions of shape: topology, symmetry, composition, and deformation.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.361 · 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