It's a matter of time: Reframing the development of cognitive control as a modification of the brain's temporal dynamics
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
Cognitive control is a process that unfolds over time and regulates thought and action in the service of achieving goals and managing unanticipated challenges. Prevailing accounts attribute the protracted development of this mental process to incremental changes in the functional organization of a cognitive control network. Here, we challenge the notion that cognitive control is linked to a topologically static network, and argue that the capacity to manage unanticipated challenges and its development should instead be characterized in terms of inter-regional functional coupling dynamics. Ongoing changes in temporal coupling have long represented a fundamental pillar in both empirical and theoretical-based accounts of brain function, but have been largely ignored by traditional neuroimaging methods that assume a fixed functional architecture. There is, however, a growing recognition of the importance of temporal coupling dynamics for brain function, and this has led to rapid innovations in analytic methods. Results in this new frontier of neuroimaging suggest that time-varying changes in connectivity strength and direction exist at the large scale and further, that network patterns, like cognitive control process themselves, are transient and dynamic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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