MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029728010 · doi:10.1111/1541-0420.00076

Parametric Modeling of Reaction Time Experiment Data

2003· article· en· W2029728010 on OpenAlexafffund
W. John Braun, Valentin Rousson, William A. Simpson, Jennifer Prokop

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungAustralian National University
KeywordsParametric statisticsNormalityNonparametric statisticsNonlinear systemComputationComputer scienceParametric modelApplied mathematicsAlgorithmIntensity (physics)MathematicsStatisticsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple parametric model is proposed for data from a point-process version of a reaction time experiment. It is used to statistically check for the presence and nature of nonlinear inhibition in the eye-brain-hand system, as well as to study the nature of the reaction time delay distribution. The model tells us that, in principle, the second-order intensity estimate can be used to determine whether the experimental subject is systematically observing the first or the second of two flashes transmitted in short succession. Nonparametric estimates of second-order intensity functions are used in conjunction with this model. In particular, the model allows for the computation of good bandwidths for intensity curve estimation. A parametric bootstrap can also be implemented. Our methods are illustrated with 12 runs of data from a real reaction time experiment. It is found that nonlinear inhibition is present in the eye-brain-hand system. However, there are insufficient data to distinguish between log-normality and normality in the reaction time distribution, due partly to confounding with the particular kind of nonlinear inhibition present in the system.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207