Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than 2000 years, artists have exploited cast shadows to influence how objects appear to be positioned in a scene. A contact cast shadow can anchor an object to the ground and a detached cast shadow can make an object appear to float. However, there is a period of approximately 1000 years when there were virtually no cast shadows in art. How were states of contact versus floating depicted by artists without cast shadows? Here, we survey various techniques used by artists to anchor relative position with and without cast shadows. We then conduct experimental tests of the hypothesized surface attraction principles that underlie these techniques. In the absence of cast shadows, an object (a wooden box) was often seen as resting on a surface as long as that surface offered information about ground orientation and support (a tiled floor). When the ground surface was ambiguous and cloud-like (1/f noise), the box was more likely to be seen to float. The presence of cast shadows made the box appear to contact the ground whether it was well-defined or ambiguous. Both shadows and surface support also increased the accuracy with which participants detected when the box was tilted up from the ground. These results indicate that artists long ago discovered the important power of support relationships to anchor objects to surfaces in the absence of shadows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".