Explaining high abilities of Nobel laureates
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
Abstract Although the Nobel Prize is associated with a rare, superior degree of intellectually creative achievement, high abilities of Nobel laureates are far from well explained. This paper argues that Nobel laureates' high abilities are determined in part by their extracognitive abilities, that is, specific feelings, preferences, beliefs and intuitive processes. The paper presents the model of extracognitive abilities based on autobiographical and biographical accounts of Nobel laureates. These abilities predict intellectually creative accomplishments of the highest level that results in great discoveries and thus outstanding scientific talent of Nobel calibre. Notes It should be noted that other psychologists also use the word 'specific' in their explanations of the intellectually creative processes at the highest level. For example, Marton, Fensham and Chaiklin (Citation1994) wrote about a 'specific form' of the feeling of being right and made reference to other 'specifics' in their research on scientific intuition in Nobel laureates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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