MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory?

2009· book-chapter· en· W2491114175 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEmbodied and Extended Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalityDual process theory (moral psychology)Dual (grammatical number)Process (computing)Cognitive scienceComputer scienceCognitionEpistemologyProcess theoryPsychologySociologyWork in processPhilosophyEngineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Building upon work which considers the implications dual-process theory for the great rationality debate in cognitive science, this chapter advances that discussion, first by discussing additions and complications to dual-process theory and then by working through the implications of these ideas for our view of human rationality. It argues that System 2 needs to be understood in terms of two levels of processing: the algorithmic and the reflective.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Quick stats

Citations513
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmbodied and Extended CognitionFrench-language works237,207