MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6912530180 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4509354

Human Instincts, Everyday Life, and the Brain: a paradigm for understanding behavior - Volume Five

2012· article· en· W6912530180 sur OpenAlexaffabout

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueEmbodied and Extended Cognition
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConsistency (knowledge bases)Process (computing)Work (physics)Order (exchange)Consistency model

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

VOLUME FIVE Volume Five deals with establishing consistency with one’s models. Establishing consistency is the process by which people act. People act by changing reality – their environment, other people, and themselves – to be consistent with their personal models. When people encounter inconsistency between reality and their personal models, they experience tension. People act in order to remove this tension. They act by changing reality to be consistent with their personal models. Thus they change their environment, other people, and themselves to correspond to their models. Establishing consistency is also the process by which people select, reject, and switch models. People select models which are consistent with their other models. They reject models which are inconsistent with their other models. People switch models by adopting those models that are more consistent with their other models, and by dropping those that are less consistent. Consistency and inconsistency are enormously important to humans. People work very hard to establish consistency in everything they do, and when they encounter inconsistency they try to get rid of it. People seek consistency between their models and their world. Models enable people to structure their reality, act, and satisfy their feelings. People are very sensitive to inconsistency with their models. Whenever people encounter inconsistency with their models, they feel tension, or bothered. Because they feel bothered, they seek to establish consistency with their models so they will no longer feel bothered. As a consequence they constantly apply pressure on the world, other people, and themselves to conform to their models. Even though people frequently change their personal models, they believe the personal models they presently hold are best for the world around them, for other people, and for themselves. Establishing consistency carries certain advantages. It is the mechanism that enables people to a) act in a purposive (non-random) way, b) achieve goals, and c) obtain resources. It is the mechanism by which people select, reject, and switch models. In addition, establishing consistency simplifies the individual’s world, remakes the world in the individual’s image, provides the brain with less work to do, permits greater communication between people, and facilitates cooperation between individuals. Establishing consistency enables people to operate more effectively and efficiently, satisfy their feelings with greater ease, and obtain more resources. People feel bothered immediately upon encountering phenomena which are inconsistent with their models. This is advantageous, because the sooner people establish consistency, the sooner they can satisfy their feelings, and the sooner they can obtain and conserve resources. At the same time the need for consistency is perhaps the major source of conflict between people. Individuals have numerous personal models which differ from the personal models of others. People are bothered when they see others use models which they would not use in the same situation. People respond by trying to get others to change their models to coincide with their own. However, others seldom want to change the models that they think they have good reasons for, that they are comfortable using (familiar with), and that they employ as part of routines. Conflict occurs when people pressure others to change their models and when people resist pressure from others to change their own models. Volume Five contains 244 photographs and a list of the implications of this research. Hardcover: 913 pages. ISBN: 978-0-9684020-4-7. Distributed by The Book Emporium, 169 Queen Street, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island C1A 4B4, Canada. e-mail: bookspei@gmail.com

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,901
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,107
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,177 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Même sujetEmbodied and Extended CognitionTravaux en français237 207