MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067456670 · doi:10.1037/a0015807

On the control of attention.

2009· article· en· W2067456670 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGazeInhibition of returnClosetAttentional controlCognitive psychologyVisual attentionControl (management)Set (abstract data type)CognitionVariety (cybernetics)Task (project management)Visual searchEye movementCognitive scienceNeuroscienceArtificial intelligencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An early interest in cognitive processes led me to study with Mike Posner from whom I acquired the intellectual tools to follow Hebb's (1949) advice that "Everyone knows that attention and set exist so we had better get the skeleton out of the closet and see what can be done with it." Using variants of the model task Posner developed for exploring the control of visual attention we have demonstrated that endogenous shifts of attention are not generated by unexecuted oculomotor activation, that endogenous and exogenous shifts of attention are fundamentally different on a variety of dimensions and that an aftermath of exogenous (but not endogenous) orienting, inhibition of return, facilitates search by encouraging orienting to novel items. A research strategy for understanding ambiguous forms of orienting (e.g., that controlled by conspecific gaze) is proposed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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