Gap claims

stale · v1 provisional approved v1 by Zach Mainen

What claim would close each gap?

for Feedback of peripheral saccade targets to early foveal cortex · this layer across all papers · json

Provisional

This layer needs a corpus-scope decision that has not been ruled on yet, so what it produces would change if the decision changed. It waits on claim-format, relation-vocab.

Approved

v1 read and approved by Zach Mainen on 2026-09-12. 1 of 2 drafts accepted into the tree, 1 rejected

Out of date

A file these inputs match appeared or was removed after this ran — the set is not what it was:

  • claims/kammer-2026-foveal-feedback/*.md

What it produced2 candidates

Read from runs/kammer-2026-foveal-feedback/gap-claim.output.json · 3 KB. drafted_on 2026-09-11model supplied:runs/kammer-2026-foveal-feedback/gap-claim.answer.json

# uidspanslugclaimrolepanelwhy
1 results-077 In contrast, we found no significant association between peripheral decoding and any of the ROIs (FEF: t(27) = 0.49, p =1.0; IPS: t(27) = 1.35, p =0.56; LO: t(27) = 2.43, p =0.07). peripheral-decoding-unrelated-to-roi-activation In the control condition (direct foveal stimulation), peripheral decoding is not significantly associated with activation in any of the three eye-movement ROIs (FEF: t(27)=0.49, p=1.0; IPS: t(27)=1.35… control fig4s1 The tree records every ROI effect in the parametric modulation that reached significance but nothing about the peripheral-decoding side of the same analysis, so the control-condition dissociation on w…
2 results-078 These findings confirm that our main effects were not simply explained by global brain fluctuations or signal-to-noise ratio, since under those conditions, we would have expected a similar relationshi… parametric-effects-not-global-fluctuations The absence of any association between peripheral decoding and ROI activation in the control condition, where foveal decoding is associated with all three ROIs, excludes global brain fluctuations and … interpretation fig4s1 The tree carries the parametric modulation results and the caveat that they were exploratory, but not the inference the authors draw from the control condition - that the divergent foveal/peripheral p…

How it is defined

A model answers this layer, so the prompt is the layer. It is reproduced below from the committed file, and it is a declared input — editing it makes every run that used it stale.

extract/prompts/gap-claim.mdthe prompt it runs undernot in the repository

The declaration names this path and the repository does not have it. An input that does not exist hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale — the layer is declared to depend on something it is not in fact tracking.

scripts/gap_claims.pythe script that runs itnot in the repository

The declaration names this path and the repository does not have it. An input that does not exist hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale — the layer is declared to depend on something it is not in fact tracking.

Artifacts

Versions

From the run ledger. There is no changelog beside it to keep in step.

  1. v1 · 2026-09-11 · supplied:runs/kammer-2026-foveal-feedback/gap-claim.answer.json

    first run of the layer; drafts answered by Claude Opus 5 through --dump-prompt

    python3 scripts/gap_claims.py kammer-2026-foveal-feedback --answer runs/kammer-2026-foveal-feedback/gap-claim.answer.json

This layer across the corpus

Across the corpus

8 not run · 2 stale·a paper links to its own cell, where this layer's output for it is rendered

Inputs and outputs

Reads, besides its dependencies
Produces
  • runs/{paper}/gap-claim.output.json
Views
  • table — rendered above, over the 5 candidates in the artifact

Running it

The command comes from the declaration, so this text and what actually runs cannot diverge. pipeline.py run also runs the unmet dependencies first.

python3 scripts/pipeline.py run <paper> gap-claim

Underneath, that runs python3 scripts/gap_claims.py {paper} --answer runs/{paper}/gap-claim.answer.json.