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
The brain shifts attention by selectively modulating sensory information about relevant environmental features. It has been shown that eye, head, trunk and limb position can bias spatial attention. This leads to the interesting question: Does the brain only recruit bodily information that is explicitly related to orienting behaviour to direct attention, or more generally? We tested whether tongue position, which does not explicitly functionally relate to orienting behaviour, biases attention in a visual search task. Thirty-six participants completed three visual search trial blocks of increased difficulty each consisting of three tongue positions for 50 trials. Response times and error rates were used to assess whether tongue position modulates visual attention. Results show that sensorimotor information from the tongue modulates attention in a difficult visual search task: faster responses to visual search targets presented ipsilateral with the tongue; slower responses when contralateral. In line with cognition being generally embodied, the tongue plays a surprising role in directing attention.
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 | 0.001 |
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