Linear changes in the spatial extent of the focus of attention across time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined changes in the spatial extent of focal attention over time. The Attentional Blink (impaired perception of the second of two targets) and Lag-1 sparing (the seemingly paradoxical finding that second-target accuracy is high when the second target immediately follows the first) were employed in a dual-stream paradigm to index spatiotemporal changes in focal attention. Lag-1 sparing occurs to targets in different streams if the second target falls within the focus of attention. Focal attention is assumed to initially encompass both streams but to shrink rapidly to the first-target stream, thus withdrawing from the second target if it appears in the opposite stream. The time available for the focus to shrink before second target onset was manipulated by varying the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between successive items in the stream. There was a progressive transition from Lag-1 sparing to its converse (Lag-1 deficit) as the SOA was increased. This transition was related linearly to SOA, which suggests that the spatial extent of focal attention varies linearly over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".