MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007603660 · doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.6.434

Fast and Fragile

2009· article· en· W2007603660 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies suggest that processing verbal materials containing negations slows down cognition and makes it more error-prone. This suggests that processing negations affords relatively nonautomatic processes. The present research studied the role of two automaticity features (processing speed and resource dependency) for negation processing. In three experiments, we tested the impact of verbal negations on affective priming effects in the Affect Misattribution Paradigm. Going beyond previous work, the results indicate that negations can be processed unintentionally and quickly (Experiments 1 and 2). In Experiment 3, negations failed to qualify affective priming effects when participants' working memory was taxed by memorizing an eight-digit number. In sum, the experiments suggest that negations can be processed unintentionally, very quickly, but that they rely on working-memory resources.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.364 · 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