MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253569158 · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.130.3.479

The preattentive emperor has no clothes: A dynamic redressing.

2001· article· en· W4253569158 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

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology General · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Task (project management)Dual (grammatical number)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligencePsychologyComputer scienceComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preattentive models of early vision have not been supported by the evidence. Instead, an input filtering system, which is dynamically reconfigured so as to optimize performance on the task at hand, is proposed. As a case in point, the authors examined Sagi and Julesz's (1985a) claim that detection tasks are processed preattentively and efficiently (shallow search slopes), whereas discrimination tasks require focal attention and yield inefficient steep slopes. In 5 visual search experiments, efficiency was found to depend not on the nature of the task but on whether the task is single or dual. The second component of a dual task, whether detection or discrimination, is performed inefficiently if it does not fit the configuration of the input system, which had been set optimally for the first component. But, even the second component is processed efficiently if there is enough time to reconfigure the system after processing the first component.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.307 · 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