Effortful processing in the speed-accuracy tradeoff phenomenon
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
Forty students participated in a dual-task speed-accuracy trade-off experiment. The primary task required them to compare the relative sizes of two symbolic stimuli, and the secondary task required them to periodically identify a tone which sounded at the beginning of each trial. The primary task was performed under both speed-emphasized and accuracy-emphasized conditions. Measures of response time and proportion correct were taken for both tasks under both conditions. Results for the primary task suggested that participants adhered to the instructional emphases of speed and accuracy. Decremented performance in the secondary task was not evident with respect to proportion correct; however, secondary task response times in the speed-emphasized condition were slower than in the accuracy-emphasized condition. These data provide some evidence that speeded responding might indeed be an inherently effortful process and, hence, might not simply involve passive adjustments to response criteria.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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