Not toeing the number line for simple arithmetic: Two large-n conceptual replications of Mathieu et al. (Cognition, 2016, Experiment 1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted two conceptual replications of Experiment 1 in Mathieu, Gourjon, Couderc, Thevenot, and Prado (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.002). They tested a sample of 34 French adults on mixed-operation blocks of single-digit addition (4 + 3) and subtraction (4 – 3) with the three problem elements (O1, +/-, O2) presented sequentially. Addition was 34 ms faster if O2 appeared 300 ms after the operation sign and displaced 5° to the right of central fixation, whereas subtraction was 19 ms faster when O2 was displaced to the left. Replication Experiment 1 (n = 74 recruited at the University of Saskatchewan) used the same non-zero addition and subtraction problems and trial event sequence as Mathieu et al., but participants completed blocks of pure addition and pure subtraction followed by the mixed-operation condition used by Mathieu et al. Addition RT showed a 32 ms advantage with O2 shifted rightward relative to leftward but only in mixed-operation blocks. There was no effect of O2 position on subtraction RT. Experiment 2 (n = 74) was the same except mixed-operation blocks occurred before the pure-operation blocks. There was an overall 13 ms advantage with O2 shifted right relative to leftward but no interaction with operation or with mixture (i.e., pure vs mixed operations). Nonetheless, the rightward RT advantage was statistically significant for both addition and subtraction only in mixed-operation blocks. Taken together with the robust effects of mixture in Experiment 1, the results suggest that O2 position effects in this paradigm might reflect task specific demands associated with mixed operations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".