Fixated in unfamiliar territory: Mapping estimates across typical and atypical number lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 72) estimated the location of target numbers on number lines that varied in numerical range (i.e., typical range 0-10,000 or atypical range 0-7,000) and spatial orientation (i.e., the 0 endpoint on the left [traditional] or on the right [reversed]). Eye-tracking data were used to assess strategy use. Participants made meaningful first fixations on the line, with fixations occurring around the origin for low target numbers and around the midpoint and endpoint for high target numbers. On traditional direction number lines, participants used left-to-right scanning and showed a leftward bias; these effects were reduced for the reverse direction number lines. Participants made fixations around the midpoint for both ranges but were less accurate when estimating target numbers around the midpoint on the 7,000-range number line. Thus, participants are using the internal benchmark (i.e., midpoint) to guide estimates on atypical range number lines, but they have difficulty calculating the midpoint, leading to less accurate estimates. In summary, both range and direction influenced strategy use and accuracy, suggesting that both numerical and spatial processes influence number line estimation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".