Judging Multi-Minute Intervals Retrospectively
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
A total of 50 participants were asked to perform five different cognitive tasks lasting 120, 210, 300, 390 and 480 s, respectively. After completing the series of tasks, they were asked to estimate retrospectively the duration of each one. Psychophysical analyses linking psychological time to physical time revealed that the value of the power law exponent was about .47, but was .79 when the estimate of the total duration of the session was taken into account--a value lower than unity, indicating that shorter durations have been overestimated, and longer durations underestimated. The Weber fraction, or the ratio of variability to time, ranged from .59 (at 120 s) to .21 (at 480 s). Overall, the study shows that it is possible to make certain changes in the traditional retrospective timing method and thus adapt it for further investigations of the mechanisms involved in memory for the duration of past events.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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