An associative model of geometry learning: A modified choice rule.
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
In a recent article, the authors (Miller & Shettleworth, 2007) showed how the apparently exceptional features of behavior in geometry learning ("reorientation") experiments can be modeled by assuming that geometric and other features at given locations in an arena are learned competitively as in the Rescorla-Wagner model and that the probability of visiting a location is proportional to the total associative strength of cues at that location relative to that of all relevant locations. Reinforced or unreinforced visits to locations drive changes in associative strengths. Dawson, Kelly, Spetch, and Dupuis (2008) have correctly pointed out that at parameter values outside the ranges the authors used to simulate a body of real experiments, our equation for choice probabilities can give impossible and/or wildly fluctuating results. Here, the authors show that a simple modification of the choice rule eliminates this problem while retaining the transparent way in which the model relates spatial choice to competitive associative learning of cue values.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it