On the selection of endogenous and exogenous signals
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
Alerting is one of the three components of attention which involves the eliciting and maintenance of arousal. A seminal study by Posner et al. (Posner MI, Klein R, Summers J, Buggie S. 1973 Mem. Cognit. 1 , 2–12 ( doi:10.3758/BF03198062 )) focused on how changing the interval between an alerting signal and a target would impact the speed and accuracy of responding. Participants indicated whether targets were presented on the left or right side of the fixation point. Auditory warning signals were played at various intervals prior to the target to alert participants and prepare them to make a response. Reaction times revealed a robust, U-shaped, preparation function. Importantly, a clear speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) was observed. In the current experiment, we replicated the methodological components of this seminal study while implementing a novel auditory warning signal (Lawrence MA, Klein RM. 2013 J. Exp. Psychol. General 142 , 560 ( doi:10.1037/a0029023 )) that was either purely endogenous (change in quality without a change in intensity; analogous to isoluminant colour change in vision) or a combination of endogenous and exogenous (change in both quality and intensity). We expected to replicate the U-shaped preparation function and SAT observed by Posner and colleagues. Based on Lawrence and Klein's findings we also expected the SAT to be more robust with the intense signal in comparison to the isointense signal.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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