The Relative Efficacy of Different forms of Knowledge of Results for the Learning of a New Relative Timing Pattern
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
The goal of the present study was to determine the relative efficacy of verbal and auditory knowledge of results for promoting learning of a new constrained relative timing pattern. In a series of four experiments we compared the efficiency of verbal knowledge of results to that of auditory knowledge of results. The results of all four experiments revealed that verbal knowledge of result is a very effective source of information to promote learning of a new imposed relative timing pattern. Auditory knowledge of results favoured learning of a new relative timing pattern in a very limited set of circumstances. In the present study, this was only the case when movement velocity remained constant from one segment of the task to the next and if it resulted in an unfamiliar temporal pattern. The results of all four experiments also provided evidence that movement parameterization and relative timing are independent processes that can be developed in parallel.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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