MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381805276 · doi:10.4000/palethnologie.5238

The Double and the Vision: What Cognitive Level is Necessary to Associate a Drawing with its Referent?

2013· article· en· W4381805276 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Wladimiro Scardovelli

Bibliographic record

VenuePalethnologie · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferentCognitionPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the possibility that the creation of the first figurative (or iconic) images by Homo can inform us on the degree of cognitive development of their creators. Semiological analysis of images Starting from the basis that the production of images implies the capacity to read them, I proceed with a semiological analysis of the act of reading. Like any sign, the iconic image transmits a limited amount of information relative to the Object to which it refers. The receiver of t...

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.025
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalethnologieSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207