Learning From the Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount and quality of practice predicts expertise, yet optimal conditions of practice have primarily been explored with novice learners. Ten expert musicians and ten novices practiced disc-throwing skills under self-regulated conditions. A third novice group practiced with the same schedule as the music experts (yoked). The groups did not differ in terms of the amount of contextual interference, only in terms of when in-practice interference was introduced. The music experts progressed from a more blocked to random schedule which was opposite to the novices. This resulted in more accurate performance in retention for the experts in comparison to both novice groups (self-scheduled and yoked). The music expert and yoked groups showed higher form scores than the novice self-scheduled group, which might be related to the greater frequency of augmented information for these groups. There was no evidence that non-task-domain experts choose a more random practice schedule than novices, but in accord with good practice principles, they gradually introduced high amounts of interference into their practice. This strategy was associated with less error in retention for the experts. Because the yoked group showed more error than the music experts, the advantage of this schedule was also performance dependent.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".