Designing for Sensory Adaptation: What You See Depends on What You’ve Been Looking at - Recommendations, Guidelines and Standards Should Reflect This
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory systems continuously recalibrate their responses according to the current stimulus environment. As a result, perception is strongly affected by the current and recent context. These adaptative changes affect both sensitivity (e.g., habituating to noise, seeing better in the dark) and appearance (e.g., how things look, what catches attention) and adjust to many perceptual properties (e.g., from light level to the characteristics of someone's face). They therefore have a profound effect on most perceptual experiences, and on how well the senses work in different settings. Characterizing the properties of adaptation, how it manifests, and when it influences perception in modern environments can provide insights into the diversity of human experience. Adaptation could also be leveraged both to optimize perceptual abilities (e.g., in visual inspection tasks like radiology) and to mitigate unwanted consequences (e.g., exposure to potentially unhealthy stimulus environments).
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 | 0.030 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".