MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080030461 · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.266

Limits of Perspective Taking

2013· article· en· W2080030461 on OpenAlexaff
Heidi L. Maibom

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)PsychologyCognitive psychologyEpistemologyPositive economicsSocial psychologyComputer scienceEconomicsArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If we understand others by pretending to be in their situation and then ‘seeing’ what we would do, feel, or think, we must have some significant capacity to forecast our own reactions to such situations. However, the evidence shows that we often do not know how we would react in situations only slightly different from those we are in. Thus, offline simulation accounts appear to be wrong. Instead, the errors that we make suggest that we typically forecast our reactions by thinking of what it would make sense for us to think, feel, or do.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.080 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia - Social and Behavioral SciencesSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207