MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995247174 · doi:10.1080/096470490944860

On the Energy Cost of Mental Effort

2006· article· en· W1995247174 on OpenAlexafffund
Theodore L. Sourkes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of the Neurosciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsPsychicEnergy (signal processing)Mental activityCognitionPsychologyEnergy metabolismCognitive psychologyScale (ratio)Process (computing)Mental processNeuroscienceCognitive scienceComputer scienceMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The discovery of the Law of Conservation of Energy in the 1840s had consequences for psychological theory. Does the process of thinking involve a novel form of energy that is not recognized by physical science? E. L. Youmans (1821-1887) argued that "mental operations are dependent upon material changes in the nervous system." Kurd Lasswitz (1848-1910) introduced the term "psychophysical energy," based upon the electrical activity of the brain. At the beginning of the twentieth century Alfred Lehmann (1858-1921) claimed that intense mental effort leads to a net increase in oxygen utilization and regarded this as evidence of a specific psychic energy. His views were adopted and extended by Hans Berger (1873-1941). F. G. Benedict (1870-1957), drawing upon extensive experience with balance experiments conducted on humans in large-scale respiration calorimeters, concluded that mental effort probably had no effect upon the brain's metabolism. Modern approaches to the problem make use of PET imaging, which detects local changes in glucose utilization by the brain during cognitive activity.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of the NeurosciencesSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207