MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916992767 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1408.2314

A Tentative Role for FOXP2 in the Evolution of Dual Processing Modes and Generative Abilities

2014· article· en· W1916992767 on OpenAlexafffund
Courtney Chrusch, Liane Gabora

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCognitive Science and Education Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFOXP2Cognitive scienceLanguage evolutionSociocultural evolutionGenerative grammarFocus (optics)Dual (grammatical number)Cognitive psychologyCognitionPsychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceSociologyPhilosophyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that the origins of cognitive modernity in the Middle/Upper Paleolithic following the appearance of anatomically modern humans was due to the onset of dual processing or contextual focus (CF), the ability to shift between different modes of thought: an explicit mode conducive to logical problem solving, and an implicit mode conducive to free-association and breaking out of a rut. Mathematical and computational models of CF supported this hypothesis, showing that CF is conducive to making creative connections by placing concepts in new contexts. This paper proposes that CF was made possible by mutation of the FOXP2 gene in the Paleolithic. FOXP2, once thought to be the 'language gene', turned out not to be uniquely associated with language. In its modern form FOXP2 enabled fine-tuning of the neurological mechanisms underlying the capacity to shift between processing modes by varying the size of the activated region of memory.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.123 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicCognitive Science and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207