MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367668944 · doi:10.1177/03010066231170071

Piaget's 3-mountains task with impossible options: Sighted, blindfolded, early and late blind participants

2023· article· en· W4367668944 on OpenAlexaff
Hsin-Yi Chao, Marta Wnuczko, John M. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph-Humber
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Cognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(projections to the sides) such as one with a square on the left, a triangle in the middle and a circle on the right. Three objects offer six elevations, of which four are possible and two impossible. The possibles are elevations from the sides of the table - front, left, right and rear. In the impossibles, an object in the corner of the table is shown in the middle of an elevation. Sighted, sighted-blindfolded, early- and late-blind adults judged the elevations as to side of the table or impossible. The results suggest similar spatial abilities across groups. The impossible options had mid-range accuracy for all groups, with reaction times like possible options. The sighted and blind participants may consider possible and impossible options sequentially, one item at a time.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207