Is absolute identification always relative? Comment on Stewart, Brown, and Chater (2005).
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
N. Stewart, G. D. A. Brown, and N. Chater's relative judgment model includes three core assumptions that enable it to predict accurately the vast majority of "classical" phenomena in absolute identification choices, but not the time taken to make them, including sequential effects, such as assimilation and contrast. These core assumptions, coupled with the parameter values used in the above-mentioned article, lead to the prediction that identification accuracy is low when a large stimulus on 1 trial is followed by a small stimulus on the next trial and vice versa. Data do not support this prediction. The authors identify a set of parameters that allow the model to better fit the data, but problems remain when the data are analyzed with a version of the discrimination measure (d') from signal detection theory. The fundamental problem is that the model fits data on average but at the expense of making incorrect predictions in detail.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it