MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decreasing the Proportion of Self-Control Trials During the Acquisition Period Does Not Compromise the Learning Advantages in a Self-Controlled Context

2011· article· en· W2091920413 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

VenueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PsychologyKnowledge of resultsCompromiseTask (project management)Self-controlScheduleControl (management)Period (music)ReceiptDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present experiment examined the learning effects of participants self-controlling their receipt of knowledge of results (KR) on all or half of their acquisition trials (50%). For participants who were provided 50% self-control, the first half of their acquisition period consisted of receiving KR on all trials, or according to a faded-KR schedule. Participants practiced a sequential timing task. The results showed that independent of practice condition, participants who self-controlled their KR during the acquisition period demonstrated superior performance compared to the respective yoked conditions in the retention and transfer portion of the experiment. These results extend previous research by suggesting that decreasing the proportion of self-control trials does not compromise learning in a self-controlled context.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.335 · 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