Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The repetition blindness (RB) and repetition deafness (RD) effectsdemonstrate that repeated objects are more difficult to notice than unrepeatedones when presented within rapid streams of stimuli. Previous research hasshown that RB can occur even if two visual targets are similar but notcompletely identical. In the present study we investigated RD for similarnon-identical auditory targets. In Experiment 1 we compared recallperformance for similar target pairs to that for identical target pairs and foundthat the difference (the RD) was significantly smaller than when comparingrecall performance for unrelated target pairs to that for identical target pairs.In Experiment 2 we presented similar, identical and unrelated target pairs in awithin-participants design and confirmed that RD occurs for similar targetsbut to a lesser extent than it does for identical targets. In both experiments,the influence of response biases and lexical competition effects wereminimized so as to render the explanation of the results clear in terms ofpure perceptual processes. The data reported here support models that predictperceptual RB and RD between similar items, as opposed to other accountsthat predict RB and RD only for items sharing the same identity."
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".