Constructing a group distribution from individual distributions.
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
A group distribution is a synthesis of a set of individual distributions. To be adequate, a method for creating group distributions should not introduce characteristics that are not present in the individual distributions and preserve those that are present. A method occasionally used is quantile averaging (sometimes called vincentizations), applied generally to response time distributions. However, it is shown here using quantile-quantile plots on empirical response times that this method is inadequate. As shown by Thomas and Ross (1980, Journal of Mathematical Psychology), to solve this problem, quantile averaging can be generalised using an appropriate nonlinear transformation of the data. Here we argue that the correct transformation is the log transform of response times to which the base response time has been removed. Equivalently, the geometric mean of the quantiles can be used. We first propose 4 estimates of the base response times. We next examine empirical data in a same-different task, in a redundant-attribute target detection task and in a visual search task. The results show that this approach is appropriate to construct group distributions. It can be used to aggregate distributions over multiple participants, over multiple sessions of training for a given participant, or both. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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