Yoked Versus Self-Controlled Practice Schedules and Performance onDual-Task Transfer Tests
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
The authors examined yoked versus self-controlled practice schedules to determine their influence in immediate and delayed dual-task performance. The task was to propel a small disc along a smooth table top, with the purpose of stopping it in a specified target area. Participants in the self-controlled schedule group chose the order in which eight acquisition targets, differing in distance from a home position, were practiced during acquisition. Members of a control group followed identical schedules to yoked participants in the self-controlled group. The authors hypothesized that those in the self-controlled group would perform with less error on retention and transfer tests and with more error on dual-task transfer tests in comparison to those in the yoked group. No differences in performance on retention, transfer, or dual-task tests were found. Possible reasons for the similar performance between groups include the provision of choice over blocks of rather than individual trials and feelings of autonomy in both groups due to choice as to how to propel the disc.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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