MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094288162 · doi:10.1348/000712609x476819

Time to act and attend to the real mechanisms of action and attention

2009· letter· en· W2094288162 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten A. Dalrymple, Alan Kingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Psychology · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAction (physics)Context (archaeology)CognitionEveryday lifeCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceSocial psychologyNeuroscienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss Humphreys' article in the context of two challenges that exist in regards to future research on the link between action and attention: (1) determining the cognitive and neural mechanisms responsible for an action-attention link and (2) demonstrating that the action-attention links observed in the laboratory reflect the same links between action and attention observed in the complexities of everyday life.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0170.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.335
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of PsychologySame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207