Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pantomimes are human actions that simulate ideas, objects, and events, commonly used in conversation, performance art, and gesture-based interfaces for computing and controlling robots. Yet, their underlying neurocognitive mechanisms are not well understood. In this review, we examine pantomimes through two parallel lines of research: (1) the two visual systems (TVS) framework for visually guided action, and (2) the neuropsychological literature on limb apraxia. Historically, the TVS framework has considered pantomime actions as expressions of conscious perceptual processing in the ventral stream, but an emerging view is that they are jointly influenced by ventral and dorsal stream processing. Within the apraxia literature, pantomimes were historically viewed as learned motor schemas, but there is growing recognition that they include creative and improvised actions. Both literatures now recognize that pantomimes are often created spontaneously, sometimes drawing on memory and always requiring online cognitive control. By highlighting this convergence of ideas, we aim to encourage greater collaboration across these two research areas, in an effort to better understand these uniquely human behaviors.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it