Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alteroception is the virtual experience of another person’s bodily movement centered in the perspective of the other person. In face-to-face interactions, human beings tend to assume a special mode of alteroception by mutually but tacitly recognizing that ‘your right is on my left and your left is on my right’. Researchers of neonatal cognition and early childhood development describe this mode of alteroception as “reverse” or “inverted”. Inverse alteroception goes beyond mirror-image mimesis to chiastic (crisscrossing) mimesis in acts of intersubjective sense-making; but the cognitive and cultural affordances of this inverse reciprocal ability are largely untreated in the literature. I argue that this unique aspect of human phenomenology deserves closer attention since it enables a broader palette of diagrammatic contrasts that extend far beyond face-to-face interaction. In this paper, I apply insights from Peircean and Greimasian semiotics to argue that salient features of the human lifeworld originate from imaginative mappings of inverse alteroception onto other domains. From diagrams of gesture space and contemporary visual design to the structures of the Proscenium stage, from historic heraldry to Aristotle’s logical square of oppositions and beyond, many visual/spatial designs and their reciprocal interaction with human experience are linked to this ability – an ability that owes its origins, in turn, to the evolution of upright posture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".