MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027133817 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.342

A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming.

2001· review· en· W2027133817 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

VenuePsychological Bulletin · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Context (archaeology)Control (management)Movement (music)PsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceEmpirical researchPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsHistoryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1899, R. S. Woodworth published a seminal monograph, "The Accuracy of Voluntary Movement." As well as making a number of important empirical contributions, Woodworth presented a model of speed-accuracy relations in the control of upper limb movements. The model has come to be known as the two-component model because the control of speeded limb movements was hypothesized to entail both a central and a feedback-based component. Woodworth's (1899) ideas about the control of rapid aiming movements are evaluated in the context of current empirical and theoretical contributions.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.243 · 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