Safe or out: Does the location of attention affect judgments at first base in baseball?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Titchener's law of prior entry states that attended stimuli are perceived before unattended stimuli. Prior entry effects measured with visual stimuli have been generated with both endogenous and exogenous attentional deployment (e.g., by Shore, Spence, & Klein, 2001). In theory, the endogenous form of prior entry may have implications for baseball umpire judgments. Conventionally, umpires are instructed to first attend to the ball when it is hit into play; however, where they attend at the imperative instant of the play at first base can vary between individuals and across scenarios. If the law of prior entry holds in the baseball context, umpires may be biased to make judgments in favour of the imperative event nearest the locus of attention. We tested this hypothesis by having non-umpires make "Safe" or "Out" judgments in response to first base baseball plays wherein the relative arrival times of the runner and baseball were varied. A novel colour wheel method was implemented in an orthogonal task to bias attention endogenously and to measure the effectiveness of this manipulation. Attention was confirmed to be successfully biased to the glove or base by way of improved identification at the likely probe location. However, there was no evidence that prior entry was affecting Safe or Out judgments. (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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".