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
Visuo-spatial cuing effects have been obtained with various types of cues such as arrows, eye-gaze or sudden onsets. Here we test whether the spatial associations of temporal cues also cause a visual orienting response. The representation of time often implies a spatial association, and for people from many Western societies this association goes such that temporally earlier events are associated with left-side space while temporally later events are associated with right-side space. In our study we tested whether this association also causes a visual orienting response. A time word (e.g. “yesterday”, “tomorrow”) appeared in the middle of the screen, followed by a target in either the left- or right-side periphery. Word cues did indeed facilitate target detection, such that left-side targets were responded to faster after word-cues referring to the past while right-side targets were responded to faster after word-cues referring to the future. The results indicate that there is indeed an association between the representation of time and space and that this association can influence the orientation of visuo-spatial attention.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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