Violation of the scalar property for time perception between 1 and 2 seconds: Evidence from interval discrimination, reproduction, and categorization.
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
According to the hypothesis of a scalar property for time, the variability to time ratio should be constant. Three experiments tested the validity of this hypothesis in a restricted range of durations (standard values = 1, 1.3, 1.6, and 1.9 s). In each experiment, time intervals to be discriminated, reproduced, or categorized were presented with 2, 4, or 6 brief successive auditory signals marking 1, 3, or 5 intervals, respectively. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to indicate whether the interval(s) within a second series of sounds were shorter or longer than those of the first. In Experiment 2, the standard interval had to be reproduced. In Experiment 3, after 10 presentations of the standard, participants had to categorize each comparison interval as shorter or longer than the standard. In addition to showing that performance was generally poorer when only 1 interval was presented and remained about the same regardless of whether 3 or 5 intervals were presented (Experiments 1 and 3), the results demonstrated that the variability to time ratio is not constant across the standard interval conditions. Overall, the ratio is higher at 1.9 than at 1 s. This violation of scalar timing occurs whatever the method used and does not interact with the number-of-interval variable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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