The Modulating Influence of Category Size on the Classification of Exception Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalization gradients to exception patterns and the category prototype were investigated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants first learned categories of large size that contained a single exception pattern, followed by a transfer test containing new instances that had a manipulated similarity relationship to the exception or a nonexception training pattern as well as distortions of the prototype. The results demonstrated transfer gradients tracked the prototype category rather than the feedback category of the exception category. In Experiment 2, transfer performance was investigated for categories varying in size (5, 10, 20), partially crossed with the number of exception patterns (1, 2, 4). Here, the generalization gradients tracked the feedback category of the training instance when category size was small but tracked the prototype category when category size was large. The benefits of increased category size still emerged, even with proportionality of exception patterns held constant. These, and other outcomes, were consistent with a mixed model of classification, in which exemplar influences were dominant with small-sized categories and/or high error rates, and prototype influences were dominant with larger sized categories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".