MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406284280

The task-oriented approach in psychology: A solution to Fodor’s problem

2014· article· en· W2406284280 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Baggs

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEmbodied and Extended Cognition
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionAction (physics)Task (project management)Relation (database)Process (computing)Cognitive scienceObject (grammar)PhenomenonComputer sciencePsychologyMental representationEpistemologyCognitive psychologyCognitionArtificial intelligencePhilosophyManagementProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is proposed that studying individual tasks in isolation is a solution to Fodor's problem: how can we break down the empirical project in psychology into tractable units?The taskoriented approach is in this sense an alternative to the modular view of the mind.I propose a definition of a task as a researcher-defined unit of study that corresponds to a reconfiguration of resources in an animal-enviroment system; this reconfiguration: is meaningful to a perceiver-actor; is amenable to precise characterization; specifies criteria for succesful completion of the task; and provides a guide to researchers on how to generalize empirical conclusions drawn from the study of a given phenomenon.The task-oriented approach is well-suited to the study of certain phenomena that the standard brainoriented approach struggles to characterize, such as collaborative activity.Framing the dichotomy between the approaches in terms of methodology allows us to avoid fruitless ontological discussions about external content.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicEmbodied and Extended CognitionFrench-language works237,207