Visual and Semantic Similarity Norms for a Photographic Image Stimulus Set Containing Recognizable Objects, Animals and Scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We collected visual and semantic similarity norms for a set of photographic images comprising 120 recognizable objects/animals and 120 indoor/outdoor scenes. Human observers rated the similarity of pairs of images within four categories of stimulus ‒ inanimate objects, animals, indoor scenes and outdoor scenes ‒ via Amazon's Mechanical Turk. We performed multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) on the collected similarity ratings to visualize the perceived similarity for each image category, for both visual and semantic ratings. The MDS solutions revealed the expected similarity relationships between images within each category, along with intuitively sensible differences between visual and semantic similarity relationships for each category. Stress tests performed on the MDS solutions indicated that the MDS analyses captured meaningful levels of variance in the similarity data. These stimuli, associated norms and naming data are made publicly available, and should provide a useful resource for researchers of vision, memory and conceptual knowledge wishing to run experiments using well-parameterized stimulus sets.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".