Spontaneous Group Synchronization of Movements and Respiratory Rhythms
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 tested whether pre-assigned arm movements performed in a group setting spontaneously synchronized and whether synchronization extended to heart and respiratory rhythms. We monitored arm movements, respiration and electrocardiogram at rest and during spontaneous, music and metronome-associated arm-swinging. No directions were given on whether or how the arm swinging were to be synchronized between participants or with the external cues. Synchronization within 3 groups of 10 participants studied collectively was compared with pseudo-synchronization of 3 groups of 10 participants that underwent an identical protocol but in an individual setting. Motor synchronization was found to be higher in the collective groups than in the individuals for the metronome-associated condition. On a repetition of the protocol on the following day, motor synchronization in the collective groups extended to the spontaneous, un-cued condition. Breathing was also more synchronized in the collective groups than in the individuals, particularly at rest and in the music-associated condition. Group synchronization occurs without explicit instructions, and involves both movements and respiratory control rhythms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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