MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Secondary Task Reaction Time

2017· other· en· W3009330710 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Basil

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Process (computing)Measure (data warehouse)Gauge (firearms)Computer sciencePsychologyEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One important question for communication research is how people make sense of communication messages. At issue is the process of understanding those messages and the difficulty or the amount of effort a person needs to devote to understanding the messages. Because our mental resources are believed to be limited, one way to measure the effort being expended is by judging how many resources remain. Specifically, while people are engaged in the primary task of processing a communication message, we gauge the remaining resources by measuring the efficiency with which they can perform a secondary task. After a review of the foundations and research behind this measure, its use and prescriptions for its use are provided.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.426 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Encyclopedia of Communication Research MethodsSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207