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
The "law of practice"-a simple nonlinear function describing the relationship between mean response time (RT) and practice-has provided a practically and theoretically useful way of quantifying the speed-up that characterizes skill acquisition. Early work favored a power law, but this was shown to be an artifact of biases caused by averaging over participants who are individually better described by an exponential law. However, both power and exponential functions make the strong assumption that the speedup always proceeds at a steadily decreasing rate, even though there are sometimes clear exceptions. We propose a new law that can both accommodate an initial delay resulting in a slower-faster-slower rate of learning, with either power or exponential forms as limiting cases, and which can account for not only mean RT but also the effect of practice on the entire distribution of RT. We evaluate this proposal with data from a broad array of tasks using hierarchical Bayesian modeling, which pools data across participants while minimizing averaging artifacts, and using inference procedures that take into account differences in flexibility among laws. In a clear majority of paradigms our results supported a delayed exponential law. (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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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