Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the success of the deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) in applications of visual recognition and classification, it would be tantalizing to test if DCNNs can also learn spatial concepts, such as straightness, convexity, left/right, front/back, relative size, aspect ratio, polygons, etc., from varied visual examples of these concepts that are simple and yet vital for spatial reasoning. Much to our dismay, extensive experiments of the type of cognitive psychology demonstrate that the data-driven deep learning (DL) cannot see through superficial variations in visual representations and grasp the spatial concept in abstraction. The root cause of failure turns out to be the learning methodology, not the computational model of the neural network itself. By incorporating task-specific convolutional kernels, we are able to construct DCNNs for spatial cognition tasks that can generalize to input images not drawn from the same distribution of the training set. This work raises a precaution that without manually-incorporated priors or features DCCNs may fail spatial cognitive tasks at rudimentary level.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".