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
Many comparisons involve sequentially presented stimuli, as perforce the case in comparisons of temporal intervals. Interactions of such stimuli are as inevitable as the spatial interactions that yield color and brightness contrast. A memory-trace theory of perception (TToP) is developed and applied to time perception. Duration is estimated based on the memorial strength of the stimuli that signal the initiation of an interval at the time of its termination. Memorial persistence depends on modality and character of the signals, which condition the response to them. When the constant difference limen on the memorial continuum is back-translated to the temporal one it yields a generalized Weber function. Memory traces interact as a function of generalization gradients: Memories of stimuli that are similar enough are aggregated-feature-bound-some veridically, others as illusory conjunctions. The resulting representations may then be judged in a discrimination paradigm, or translated back to the physical domain as reproductions of the intervals. The presentation of a standard stimulus affects the perception of the comparison stimulus, warping the ruler by which it is measured. Complementary effects are predicted for discrimination and adjustment paradigms. Thus configured, the TToP accounts for multiple special effects, variously referred to as distortions, anomalies, and illusions, that are observed with classical psychophysical methods: Scalar and nonscalar timing, modality effects, time-order errors, masking, time warping, lengthening, and Vierordt's law. Similar processes affect the perception of nontemporal stimuli whenever they are presented in sequential proximity to one another. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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