MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W976395 · doi:10.1007/bf00238277

Stanley Kubrick Drama and Shadows: Photographs 1945-1950

2006· article· en· W976395 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philippe Mather

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterDramaContext (archaeology)PhotojournalismArtEntertainmentArt historyVisual artsStudioComicsPhotographyLiteratureHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smooth pursuit eye movements have been described as resulting from the tracking of self-moved targets in total darkness. This study investigated the nature of the signal responsible for the release of smooth pursuit in this particular situation. Simultaneous monitoring of eye and hand positions shows that in total darkness smooth pursuit can only be released if the imagined target is either passively or actively moved by the subject's hand. An ischaemic block applied at the level of the biceps allowed us to selectively remove the afferent signal preferentially to the efferent copy in tasks involving eye tracking of an imaginary target actively or passively moved. The results show that an afferent signal was necessary and sufficient to release smooth pursuit, whereas the efferent copy alone could not trigger smooth pursuit. However, the efferent copy could play an important role in the phase relationship (prediction) between eye and finger events and in the activation of the concomitantly active saccadic system. Analysis of the eye movement characteristics, in various non-visually guided, load-affected situations, suggested that the main input to the smooth pursuit system was derived, in a non-graded way, from the position detector activation of the target-moving structure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicLiterature, Film, and Journalism AnalysisFrench-language works237,207