MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044497571 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2013.794767

IOR Effects in a Social Free-Choice Task

2013· article· en· W2044497571 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor Reid, Lokman Wong, Jay Pratt, Catherine Morgan, Timothy N. Welsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInhibition of returnPsychologyStimulus (psychology)Social psychologyCognitive psychologyChoice reaction timeSimon effectAffect (linguistics)Response biasDevelopmental psychologyCommunicationPerceptionCognitionVisual attentionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social inhibition of return (S-IOR) refers to the finding that reaction times (RTs) are longer for movements to the same location as a partner's previous response. Wilson and Pratt (2007) found that when people acting alone freely chose their responses, they were less likely to choose a response that was spatially-compatible with a recently presented stimulus, suggesting that the processes underlying IOR effects in RT also affect response selection. The current study investigated if a similar response selection bias would occur in a free-choice S-IOR task. It was found that participants were less likely to move to the location that their partner previously contacted. This similarity in responses biases in free-choice tasks is generally consistent with the notion that similar processes underlie individual and S-IOR.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Motor BehaviorSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207