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
In a temporal bisection task with humans, the observer is required to decide whether a probe duration (t) is more similar to the short referent (S), an R(S) response, or to the long referent (L), an RL response. Temporal bisection yields a psychometric function relating the proportion of long responses, P(R(L)), to probe duration t. The value of t at which R(S) and R(L) occur with equal frequency, P(R(L)) = .5, is referred to as the bisection point, T1/2. Bisection models usually interpret T1/2 as identifying the value of t that is equally confusable with S and L, but they differ in their predictions for the location of T1/2. The present paper presents new data relevant to the location and interpretation of T1/2. The data indicate that the empirical values usually are biased, the biases being influenced by duration range, L:S ratio, and probe spacing. Moreover, the biases often are not consistent across observers. It is concluded that empirical values of T1/2 should not be interpreted as indicating the value of t that is equally confusable with S and L.
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) | 0.000 | 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