MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052082183 · doi:10.1080/02724980244000495

Individual stopping times and cognitive control: Converging evidence for the stop signal task from a continuous tracking paradigm

2003· article· en· W2052082183 on OpenAlex
Sharon Morein‐Zamir, Nachshon Meiran

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracking (education)Task (project management)Stopping timeEarly stoppingTracking errorComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)CognitionStop signalStopping powerPsychologyArtificial intelligenceControl (management)StatisticsMathematicsDetectorNeuroscienceEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study introduces a continuous tracking procedure to investigate cognitive stopping in individual trials. Our measure of stopping performance had a mean similar to mean stopping times estimated in the stop signal paradigm, suggesting a common underlying process. Additional findings indicate that stopping performance and tracking performance were dissociable. First, while stopping times were primarily affected by stop signal modality, tracking performance was primarily affected by tracking difficulty. Second, tracking performance influenced tracking but not stopping in immediately following trials. Stopping influenced neither tracking performance nor stopping in immediately following trials. Finally, there was no correlation between tracking performance and stopping performance, or any dependency between them as found in the conditional means.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.251 · 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