Bibliographic record
Abstract
The temporal generalization method (TGM) is a data analysis technique that can be used to test if the brain’s representation for particular stimuli (e.g. sounds, images) is maintained, or if it changes as a function of time (King J-R, Dehaene S. 2014 Characterizing the dynamics of mental representations: the temporal generalization method. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18 , 203–210. ( doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.002 )). The TGM involves training models to predict the stimuli or condition using a time window from a recording of brain activity, and testing the resulting models at all possible time windows. This is repeated for all possible training windows to create a full matrix of accuracy for every combination of train/test window. The results of a TGM indicate when brain activity patterns are consistent (i.e. the trained model performs well even when tested on a different time window), and when they are inconsistent, allowing us to track neural representations over time. The TGM has been used to study the representation of images and sounds during a variety of tasks, but has been less readily applied to studies of language. Here, we give an overview of the method itself, discuss how the TGM has been used to analyse two studies of language in context and explore how the TGM could be applied to further our understanding of semantic composition. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Towards mechanistic models of meaning composition’.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".