Short-term memory and time estimation: Beyond the 2-second "critical" value.
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
We showed previously that when time intervals around two seconds (s) are reproduced concurrently with a memory task, intervals are positively related to duration of memory processing. However, some data in research on timing as well as in memory research suggest that 2 s might be a critical duration beyond which different mechanisms or structures would support performance. This implies that the interference observed between memory processing and 2-s productions could be specific to these durations, and would not be obtained with longer durations. In this experiment, intervals ranging from 1.85 to 6.45 s were reproduced by participants, who were searching simultaneously for a memory probe. At all durations, reproductions were positively related to memory set size. These findings have implications with regards to previous research indicating a discontinuity around 2-3 s in time perception. They suggest in particular that the role of memory is similar in reproduction of durations around 2 s and of longer durations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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