Simple addition and multiplication: No comparison
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
Some models of memory for arithmetic facts (e.g., 5+2=7, 6×7=42) assume that only the max-left order is stored in memory (e.g., 5+2=7 is stored but not 2+5=7). These models further assume an initial comparison of the two operands so that either operand order (5+2 or 2+5) can be mapped to the common internal representation. We sought evidence of number comparison in simple addition and multiplication by manipulating size congruity. In number comparison tasks, performance costs occur when the physical and numerical size of numerals are incongruent (8 3) relative to when they are congruent (8 3). Sixty-four volunteers completed a number comparison task, an addition task, and a multiplication task with both size congruent and size incongruent stimuli. The comparison task demonstrated that our stimuli were capable of producing robust size congruity and split effects. In the addition and multiplication task, however, we were unable to detect any of the RT signatures of comparison or reordering processes despite ample statistical power: Specifically, there was no evidence of size congruity, split, or order effects in either the addition or multiplication data. We conclude that our participants did not routinely engage a comparison operation and did not consistently reorder the operands to a preferred orientation.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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