MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087345155 · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.495

How much like a target can a mask be? Geometric, spatial, and temporal similarity in priming: A reply to Schlaghecken and Eimer (2006).

2006· letter· en· W2087345155 on OpenAlexafffund
Alejandro Lleras, James T. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology General · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPriming (agriculture)PsychologyNegative primingSimilarity (geometry)Cognitive psychologyPrime (order theory)Stimulus–response compatibilityCommunicationSocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceSelective attentionComputer scienceCognitionMathematicsImage (mathematics)NeuroscienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors make 3 points in response to F. Schlaghecken and M. Eimer's proposal of self-inhibition as an explanatory factor in the negative compatibility effect: (a) The self-inhibition hypothesis lacks empirical support for its main tenets; (b) considering the roles of geometric, spatial, and temporal similarity of primes and masks makes self-inhibition unnecessary; and (c) the negative compatibility effect occurs even when the main tenets of self-inhibition are violated. The authors propose that understanding what is "relevant" in a masked-priming task applies not only to geometric features that are shared with the target but to spatial and temporal ones as well. Briefly, target-mask similarity determines how motor preparation is accumulated during the prime-mask sequence.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations67
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology GeneralSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207