MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330860216 · doi:10.1037/a0032470

Interval timing under variations in the relative validity of temporal cues.

2013· article· en· W2330860216 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyReinforcementAudiologyTraining (meteorology)Interval (graph theory)ScheduleCognitive psychologySocial psychologyMedicineComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two groups of pigeons were trained to respond on a white center key to a fixed-interval, 60-s schedule of reinforcement signaled by the onset of a side-key cue (S+ training). In additional training sessions, S+ trials alternated between S- trials in which a different side-key cue signaled nonreinforcement after 60 s (S+/S- training). For one group, S+/S- training sessions followed S+ training, and for the other group, S+/S- training preceded S+ training. Peak-time curves obtained from extended nonrewarded probe trials inserted among training trials showed loss of control by time during S+/S- training relative to S+ training. A follow-up experiment showed that this result was not caused by a difference in probability of reinforcement. We suggest that attention to time was weakened by the introduction of visual cues that were more valid predictors of trial outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.243 · 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