MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235821642 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648646

The effects of statistical learning and congruency on the development of multi-modal objects

2021· preprint· en· W4235821642 on OpenAlexaff
Zara Po Yee Chan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModality (human–computer interaction)FacilitationObject (grammar)ModalPsychologyPredictive valueCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of statistical learning and congruency on multi-modal binding were examined. As pattern acquisition is stronger for within-object than for between-object associations, extending bias from within-object to within-modality was tested, and the statistical learning effect on between-modality learning assessed. Dyson and Ishfaq‟s (2008) paradigm was adapted, with frequency of within- and between-modality associations manipulated (Experiment 1), and frequency and congruency manipulated (Experiment 2). Each experiment comprised baseline (no predictive value), intra-modal (intramodal predictive value), and inter-modal (intermodal predictive value) conditions. Experiment 1 showed faster performance for within-object judgments, and fewer errors on within-object judgments, excluding the inter-modal condition. Experiment 2 replicated this, with cross-experimental analyses showing weak congruency effects. Data showed probability manipulations led mostly to interference on same-modality trials rather than facilitation on different-modality trials, suggesting while frequency of differentmodality associations did not facilitate superior performance, perhaps expectancies of frequent different-modality associations weakened sensitivity to the within-modality bias.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207