MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068248690 · doi:10.1080/02724980443000818

Familiarity seekers are fast and novelty seekers are slow

2005· article· en· W2068248690 on OpenAlexaff
John Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNoveltySeekersCognitive psychologyReplication (statistics)Stimulus (psychology)AudiologySocial psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Christie and Klein (1995) demonstrated that a familiar item (word) rapidly attracts attention when presented simultaneously with an unfamiliar item (nonword). However, this finding has never been replicated. The current study is an attempt at such a replication. Participants were presented a familiar word and unfamiliar nonword in the experimental condition. At varying times after stimulus onset one of the items moved, and the participant reported the direction of the movement. A replication of Christie and Klein would be obtained if performance was better for movement discrimination of the familiar item shortly after onset but not at later intervals. The original finding was replicated in fast participants while slower participants show a different effect. A potential individual difference variable is suggested to explain this difference between the fast and slow participants.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207