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
We conducted an experiment with 22 participants to investigate the effect of presentation style of a secondary task on a 1-D tracking task that simulated gap control in driving. Participants operated the tracking task with a foot pedal while performing a secondary task (counting vowels in a list of multiple letters) under conditions involving different modalities (audio/ visual), presentation styles (simultaneous/ sequential), task complexity (the number of distractors), and time dependency (list length). Our results showed that audio conditions with a longer and/or more complex secondary task did not improve primary (tracking) task performance, even though eye gaze dwelling time on the primary monitor in these cases tended to be substantially longer than the corresponding times in visual conditions. For a more complex version of the secondary task (longer list lengths) visual presentation of the task all at once (simultaneously) led to better performance then sequential presentation (whether visual or auditory). When given a choice people also tended to prefer simultaneous visual presentation of the secondary task. We discuss the effect of presentation modality of the secondary task in terms of its implications for user interface design in vehicles.
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 | 0.001 | 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