MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rethinking Space: A Review of Perception, Attention, and Memory in Scene Processing

2020· review· en· W3031671879 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

VenueAnnual Review of Vision Science · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionComputer scienceSpatial analysisSpace (punctuation)Information processingField (mathematics)Spatial relationSemantic memorySpatial organizationSpatial contextual awarenessArtificial intelligenceComputer visionHuman–computer interactionCognitive psychologyGeographyPsychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scene processing is fundamentally influenced and constrained by spatial layout and spatial associations with objects. However, semantic information has played a vital role in propelling our understanding of real-world scene perception forward. In this article, we review recent advances in assessing how spatial layout and spatial relations influence scene processing. We examine the organization of the larger environment and how we take full advantage of spatial configurations independently of semantic information. We demonstrate that a clear differentiation of spatial from semantic information is necessary to advance research in the field of scene processing.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.371 · 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