Item order matters in a function learning task.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a function learning task, participants are taught the relationship between 2 variables, a predictor (e.g., the dosage of a drug) and a criterion (e.g., its effect on mood). Of particular interest in this article is the question of what information does a participant use to generate a response for test examples that fall outside the training region-so-called, extrapolation items. In this article, we test whether the presentation of training items has an impact on the pattern of responses for items requiring participants to extrapolate, and examine, whether the 2 dominant accounts of function learning (Population of Linear Experts [POLE]: Kalish, Lewandowsky, & Kruschke, 2004; and Extrapolation Association Model [EXAM]: DeLosh, Busemeyer, & McDaniel, 1997) can account for this effect. The results show that a manipulation of trial-to-trial changes in the relative magnitudes of the predictor and criterion does influence subsequent extrapolation, and neither POLE, nor EXAM, was able to account for this effect in their current forms. We demonstrate that a model that encodes information about the trial-to-trial changes in the predictor and criterion, and which subsequently uses this information to adjust the retrieved value of the criterion, can account for the effect.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".