MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200625392 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x21001151

Real models: The limits of behavioural evidence for understanding the ANS

2021· letter· en· W4200625392 on OpenAlexaff
Denitza Dramkin, Darko Odic

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLitmusRational numberComputationPsychologyTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyMathematical economicsMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clarke and Beck use behavioural evidence to argue that (1) approximate ratio computations are sufficient for claiming that the approximate number system (ANS) represents the rationals, and (2) the ANS does not represent the reals. We argue that pure behaviour is a poor litmus test for this problem, and that we should trust the psychophysical models that place ANS representations within the reals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0160.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.009

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 head0.582
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.156 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsFrench-language works237,207