Later events lie behind her, but not behind you: Compatibility effects for temporal sequences along the sagittal axis depend on perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perspective plays a large role in how we think about space.Does perspective also influence how we think about abstract concepts, such as time, which have been shown to be closely associated with how we think about space?Linguistic patterns suggest that speakers talk about temporal sequences from two perspectives: field-based and ego perspective (Moore, 2011).However, the psychological reality of these mappings beyond their use in language is unclear.The present study examines whether sequential reasoning recruits the sagittal (front-back) axis differently, depending on the perspective adopted for the task.We manipulated perspective by using pronouns meant to evoke a field-based or ego perspective ("her" vs "your" high school graduation, respectively).Participants made earlierthan or later-than judgments about event sequences using a mouse in front of or behind their body.We observed an interaction between pronoun, temporal reference, and response location.Participants map space onto time differently depending on the frame of reference from which temporal sequences are interpreted.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".