Causes and Consequences of Limited Attention
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review focuses on the evolutionary causes and consequences of limited attention, defined as the restricted rate of information processing by the brain. The available data suggest, first, that limited attention is a major cognitive constraint determining animals' search for cryptic food, and, second, that limited attention reduces animals' ability to detect predators while involved in challenging tasks such as searching for cryptic food. These two effects of limited attention probably decrease animal fitness. Furthermore, a simulated evolutionary study provides empirical support for the prediction that focused attention by predators selects for prey polymorphism. The neurobiological mechanisms underlying limited attention have been widely studied. A recent incorporation of that mechanistic knowledge into an ecological model suggests that limited attention is an optimal strategy that balances effective yet economical search for cryptic objects. The review concludes with a set of testable predictions aimed to expand the currently limited empirical knowledge on the evolutionary ecology of limited attention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it