The cognitive architecture of processes responsible to assess similarity and clarity in a comparison task
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
When asked to compare two stimuli, participants are on average faster to respond Same than Different, an effect coined the fast-same. The dual-process theory argues that information about similarity is processed in priority over any other type of information, causing the fast-same effect. We tested this serial architecture of cognitive processes using a double factorial paradigm, suitable for a Systems Factorial Technology (SFT) analysis. Twenty participants completed a task in which they compared two letters, which were varied on two dimensions: the similarity and the clarity of the letters. Their task was to indicate if the second letter was the Same as the second letter (ranging from identical and clear to similar and slightly blurry) or if it was Different (if the stimuli were either dissimilar or very blurry). The SFT results show that most participants processed the information in serial, but in a mixed order. In other words, for some trials, participants processed similarity first, and for some other trials, they processed clarity first. This implies that participant indeed processed information in serial in the comparison task, but that it does not cause the fast-same effect.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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