Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overarching purpose of this project is to expand upon our understanding of the nature of self-consciousness.Specifically, I investigate our sense of self as a subject of experience, as one and the same experiencer extended over time.Conceptual inquiry and cognitive psychology studies are the primary means of investigation.I seek to fulfill two primary goals.First, I make the case for the distinction between consciousness of the self-as-subject (SAS) and self-as-object (SAO).I lay forth the conceptual foundations for this distinction and discuss the properties of SAS consciousness.I also review empirical literature that reveals, intentionally or not, the importance of the distinction.Second, after reviewing the present state of existing studies pertaining to SAS consciousness, I present a complete study and a preliminary study that I undertook to identify and investigate the mechanism responsible for the phenomenon.I examine the relationship between SAS consciousness and other cognitive faculties, specifically episodic memory and attention.I claim that episodic memory is dependent upon SAS consciousness, and that attention must be paid to self for episodic memory to form.In the first study, I examine the effects of distraction on SAS consciousness in adult participants.In the second, preliminary study, I turn my attention to children, investigating how SAS consciousness develops in 3-5 year-olds, with respect to other aspects of self-consciousness.iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Andrew Brook, for his guidance and encouragement that began before I even joined the program.I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with him.I would also like to thank Deepthi Kamawar for all her help in learning the ways of empirical research and especially research with young children, with all the trials and tribulations that entails.I would also like to thank the women
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".