Procedures for determining and then modifying the extinction component of multiple schedules for destructive behavior
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
As a component of reinforcer schedule thinning following functional communication training, multiple schedules of reinforcement produce desirable rates and patterns of communication responses as an alternative response to destructive behavior. However, reinforcement schedule thinning is a gradual process that can take many sessions to obtain therapeutic goals. The desired outcome is that manding occurs only during signaled intervals of reinforcement with a sufficiently lean terminal schedule of reinforcement availability and low rates of destructive behavior. The purposes of this study were to (a) evaluate an assessment for informing the initial duration of extinction for alternative responding, (b) evaluate the utility of competing stimuli during extinction for alternative responding, and (c) assess a method for fading the availability of competing stimuli. With these procedures, all 4 participants experienced terminal schedules of reinforcement with rapid, robust reductions in destructive behavior soon after baseline. We discuss the implications and directions for future research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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