MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1899520281

CONTEXTUAL CONTROL OF ACCRUAL THRESHOLDS

2006· article· en· W1899520281 on OpenAlex
William M. Petrusic, Joseph V. Baranski

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of Fechner Day · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminative modelStimulus (psychology)PsychologyAccrualContext effectStimulus controlCognitive psychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current theories of decision processing in a wide variety of binary choice tasks posit some form of evidence accumulation over time until a threshold or criterion is reached. In the context of discrimination of visual extent, we show that evidence accrual criteria for any particular stimulus pair are dependent upon the overall, global, difficulty context. In particular, response times (RTs) on a target set of stimulus pairs of moderate difficulty were increased when embedded in a difficult context. Moreover, when easy to discriminate pairs were included along with difficult pairs, RTs were the same as when in a difficult context alone, consistent with the additional finding that target pair RTs were uninfluenced by the inclusion of easy pairs. Thus, the most difficult stimulus pair encountered over the course of the experiment controls evidence accrual criteria. The absence of contextual effects on either discriminative accuracy or confidence ratings is also entirely consistent with the Slow and Fast Guessing theory (Petrusic, 1992) based views of contextual difficulty effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it