MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996421394 · doi:10.3389/frym.2019.00130

Does Everyone Pay Attention to People in the Same Way?

2019· article· en· W2996421394 on OpenAlexaff
Devon S. Heath, Dana A. Hayward

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers for Young Minds · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeFocus (optics)Internet privacyFilter (signal processing)PsychologySocial mediaSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyPolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environment around us is constantly changing, so how does the brain adapt to these new and ever-changing situations? Attention helps us filter out distracting information and focus on specific bits of information. For example, when you are at home doing your homework, you might not notice background noises like a dog barking or traffic outside. Not only are researchers interested in how the brain pays attention, but also in how attention is unique for different people and for different types of information, from simple flashes of light to complex faces. In this article, we will explain the importance of social information, how attention prioritizes social information, and how the amount of attention devoted to social information (known as social attention) varies across different people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers for Young MindsSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207