Exploring the Semantic-Inconsistency Effect in Scenes Using a Continuous Measure of Linguistic-Semantic Similarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viewers use contextual information to visually explore complex scenes. Object recognition is facilitated by exploiting object–scene relations (which objects are expected in a given scene) and object–object relations (which objects are expected because of the occurrence of other objects). Semantically inconsistent objects deviate from these expectations, so they tend to capture viewers’ attention (the semantic-inconsistency effect). Some objects fit the identity of a scene more or less than others, yet semantic inconsistencies have hitherto been operationalized as binary (consistent vs. inconsistent). In an eye-tracking experiment ( N = 21 adults), we study the semantic-inconsistency effect in a continuous manner by using the linguistic-semantic similarity of an object to the scene category and to other objects in the scene. We found that both highly consistent and highly inconsistent objects are viewed more than other objects (U-shaped relationship), revealing that the (in)consistency effect is more than a simple binary classification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".