The influence of location, ownership, and the presence of a coactor on the processing of objects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans operate in complex environments where social interactions require individuals to constantly attend to people and objects around them. Despite the complexity of these interactions from a visuomotor perspective, humans can engage and thrive in social settings. The purpose of the current study was to examine the simultaneous influence of multiple social cues (i.e., ownership and the presence of a coactor) on the processing of objects. Participants performed an object-based compatibility task in the presence and absence of a coacting confederate. Participants indicated whether pictures of mugs (that were either self-owned or unowned) were upright or inverted. The pictures appeared at one of 2 locations (a near or far location relative to the participant) on a computer screen laid flat on (parallel to) the tabletop. When present, the coactor stood on the opposite side of the screen/table. Analysis of response times (RTs) indicated that the processing of objects was influenced by the object's ownership status, the presence of the coactor, and where the object was located on the screen. Specifically, RTs for pictures of self-owned mugs were shorter than unowned mugs, but only when the pictures were located at the near location. Further, the presence of a confederate resulted in shorter RTs for pictures located at the near but not the far location. These findings suggest that when objects were placed at the far location, the additional social cues of ownership and social context did not influence visuomotor processing of the objects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".