Eye movements, attention, and expert knowledge in the observation of Bharatanatyam dance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research indicates that dance expertise affects eye-movement behaviour-dance experts tend to have faster saccades and more tightly clustered fixations than novices when observing dance, suggesting that experts are able to predict movements and process choreographic information more quickly. Relating to this, the present study aimed to explore (1) the effects of expertise on eye movements (as a proxy for attentional focus and the existence of movement-dance schemas) in Indian Bharatanatyam dance, and (2) narrative dance, which is an important component of Bharatanatyam. Fixation durations, dwell times, and fixation-position dispersions were recorded for novices and experts in Bharatanatyam (N = 28) while they observed videos of narrative and non-narrative Bharatanatyam dance. Consistent with previous research, experts had shorter fixation durations and more tightly clustered fixations than novices. Tighter clustering of fixations was also found for narrative dance versus non-narrative. Our results are discussed in relation to previous dance and eye-tracking research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it