A Cognitive Fingerprint in Human Random Number Generation
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
Most work in the neurosciences collapses data from multiple subjects to obtain robust statistical results. This research agenda ignores that even in healthy subjects brain structure and function are known to be highly variable. Recently, Finn and colleagues showed that the brain's functional organisation is unique to each individual and can yield human-specific connectome fingerprints. This raises the question whether unique functional brain architecture may reflect a unique implementation of cognitive processes and problem solving - i.e. "Can we identify single individuals based on how they think?". The present study addresses the general question of interindividual differences in the specific context of human random number generation. We analyzed the deployment of recurrent patterns in the pseudorandom sequences to develop an identification scheme based on subject-specific volatility patterns. We demonstrate that individuals can be reliably identified based on how they how they generate randomness patterns alone. We moreover show that this phenomenon is driven by individual preference and inhibition of patterns, together forming a cognitive fingerprint.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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