MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016586151 · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000048

The Role of a Change Heuristic in Judgments of Sound Intensity

2009· article· en· W2016586151 on OpenAlex
Launa C. Leboe, Todd A. Mondor

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
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIntensity (physics)HeuristicSound intensityAudiologyConstant (computer programming)IllusionSound changeDuration (music)Sound (geography)Cognitive psychologyAcousticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leboe and Mondor (2008) demonstrated that participants will apply a change heuristic when making duration judgments. In this study we investigated whether participants would apply this same change heuristic when making judgments about the perceived intensity of a sound. In two experiments, participants were presented with two consecutive sounds on each of a series of trials and their task was to judge whether the second sound was louder or quieter than the first. In Experiment 1, participants were more likely to judge sounds that increased in frequency as louder in intensity than sounds that maintained a constant frequency. In Experiment 2, participants were more likely to judge sounds that either increased or decreased in frequency as louder in intensity than sounds that maintained a constant frequency. We interpret these results as evidence that reliance on a change heuristic leads to the illusion of increased intensity.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.299 · 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