MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075418616 · doi:10.1518/155534309x441853

Modeling SGOMS in ACT-R: Linking Macro- and Microcognition

2009· article· en· W2075418616 on OpenAlexaff
Robert West, Sylvain Pronovost

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive architectureSociotechnical systemComputer scienceCognitive scienceCognitionArchitectureCognitive modelMacroSelection (genetic algorithm)Software engineeringHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligencePsychologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

West and Nagy (2007) first addressed the issue of using cognitive architectures for modeling macrocognition by arguing that this can be viewed as a special case of macrocognition, in which there is a deliberate attempt to connect macrocognition to microcognition through the use of the architecture. West and Nagy also developed and tested a method for applying GOMS, (a modeling system based on Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection Rules created by Card, Moran, and Newell, 1983) to model macrocognition. That system was called Sociotechnical GOMS (SGOMS). In this paper we further discuss the relationship between cognitive modeling and macrocognition and describe our work on implementing the SGOMS system in the ACT-R cognitive architecture.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision MakingSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207