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
Sound and light take different amounts of time to reach their respective receptors, to be transduced, and to be transmitted to the cortex. Their processing times also vary with factors such as intensity and retinal eccentricity. We assessed the capability of subjects to perceive simultaneity correctly despite these variations. Temporal asynchronies of up to 200 ms were introduced between the components of sound/light pairs. Using the method of constant stimuli, seven subjects judged which came first. Distance, and hence the times of arrival of paired visual and auditory targets, was varied from 1 to 32 m. Visual intensity was varied by viewing the target through 1.8 dB attenuating glasses, and a retinal eccentricity of 20 degrees was compared to central presentation. Despite large differences in reaction times, which varied in a predictable way with the stimulus parameters, the timing of sound/light pairings judged as simultaneous corresponded to when the light and sound left the source simultaneously. Almost complete compensation was found in all conditions tested, showing that these substantial but predictable variations in timing can be taken into account in creating simultaneity constancy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.037 | 0.015 |
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