Apple-and-pin drawings by blind novices show occluded features: region theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sighted children drawing an apple with a pin through it show the hidden parts of the pin. That is, not only is the pin shown running towards the apple and out the other side, it is also shown inside the apple, without a single break, and so the sketch depicts the occluded parts of the pin. Several investigators have offered theories of the observation. We report here on tangible raised-line drawings by young blind people who are novices at drawing. They also include occluded segments of the pin. To explain the drawings we use the John Willats region theory. In this account, enclosed regions represent the volumes of 3D objects. According to region theory, what is in the interior of an object should be shown in the drawing even if it cannot be seen or touched. As a result, since occluded parts of the pin are inside the apple, blind children, like sighted children, include them in their drawings. In region theory, for both the blind and the sighted, long lines on a 2D pictorial surface represent elongated objects in the scene and regions on the surface represent 3D objects and their contents. The basis of region theory may be that sensory information for pins and lines has high-frequency components, and for apples and regions has lower-frequency components.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".