MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059359798 · doi:10.1080/00221300209602105

Two Tests of the Stuck-in-Time Hypothesis

2002· article· en· W2059359798 on OpenAlex
William A. Roberts, Shelley Roberts

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 Journal of General Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTest (biology)Control (management)AudiologyCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report 2 experiments that test the stuck-in-time hypothesis, which argues that animals cannot time-date events and thus do not remember when events occurred and do not anticipate future events. In Experiment 1, rats in the experimental condition could earn a large reward by reentering the 1st arm that they visited on a radial maze. They did not learn to reenter this arm early and did no better than did a control group that was not given a large reward for reentering the first arm. In Experiment 2, rats in the experimental group could earn a large reward by delaying entry into a distinctive arm. These rats did not learn to delay entry into the distinctive arm, and they performed no better than did the control-group rats, which did not receive a large reward for delayed entry. These experiments provide further evidence in support of the stuck-in-time hypothesis.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.200 · 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