Promises and Perils of Cognitive Performance Tools: A Dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive performance tools are evolving and their application is expanding rapidly. Although these tools promise significant advantages, they also raise a number of significant ethical and social concerns. This paper first provides an overview of various cognitive performance tools. Subsequently, there is a dialogue between Viirre on the one hand and Baylis and Downie on the other. Together, they explore the promises and perils of cognitive performance tools available now, or in the near future (perhaps within the next ten to twenty years). The authors conclude there are potential benefits with the development and use of cognitive performance tools. Care must be taken, however, with respect to the ways in which such tools may not serve the interests of individuals and communities.
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 | 0.149 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.100 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".