MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244225061 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13563

Prospective and Retrospective Time Estimation: Investigating the Effects of Task Duration and Cognitive Load

2019· dissertation· en· W4244225061 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Duration (music)CognitionCognitive loadEstimationProspective memoryPsychologyRetrospective memoryCognitive psychologyComputer scienceAudiologyMedicineEpisodic memoryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experiment investigated participants' ability to keep track of time during a visual and memory search task where task difficulty and duration were manipulated. Two hundred and ninety-two participants performed the task for eight or 58 minutes. Participants in the prospective time judgment condition were forewarned of an impending time estimate whereas those in the retrospective condition were not. Cognitive load was manipulated and assessed by assigning participants to either a consistent or a varied mapping condition. The results revealed overestimation and higher variability of estimates in the prospective condition compared to the retrospective one in the eight-minute task only. Moreover, participants significantly overestimated the duration of the eight-minute task and underestimated the 58-minute task.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Functions and MemoryFrench-language works237,207