MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000590972 · doi:10.1037/a0031119

Perseveration in barrier crossing.

2013· article· en· W2000590972 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark A. Schmuckler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPerseverationPsychologyPerceptionCognitive psychologyCognitionPhenomenonNeuroscienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenomenon of response perseveration has captivated psychologists for years, with the majority of theories of this effect focusing primarily on the cognitive, spatially oriented nature of this behavior. The current project examined whether response perseveration would also occur within a task requiring little cognitive spatial resources--barrier crossing. Across three experiments, significant response perseveration was observed in toddlers' choices of which side of a barrier to cross. Specifically, Experiment 1 demonstrated the basic effect of response perseveration in barrier crossing, Experiment 2 showed that perseveration would continue even when the chosen side was more difficult to cross than the nonchosen side, and Experiment 3 demonstrated that perseverations were based on an environment-centered reference frame, as opposed to a body-centered reference frame. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for theoretical accounts of response perseveration specifically, and with regard to perceptual-motor relations more generally.

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)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207