MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response Set

2010· other· en· W4247142967 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

VenueThe Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Stroop effectComputer sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The response set is composed of the group of acceptable responses in a given experimental context. The response set represents the mapping between a given stimulus and the correct response. For example, in a Stroop task, if the instruction is to “name the ink color of the color word” and the ink colors used are red and green, then the response set consists of the responses “red” and “green.” Response set needs to be differentiated from the stimulus set. In the previous example, the response set (i.e., “red” and “green”) and the stimulus set (i.e., the colors red and green) are the same, but this need not be the case. For example, participants could be instructed to respond “green” to the ink color red and “red” to the ink color green. The response set and the stimulus set together form the task set. There are a number of empirical phenomena associated with the study of response set. Major areas of interest include the effect of (1) the relation between stimulus set and response set, (2) response set membership in selective attention tasks, (3) response set size, and (4) switching response sets. Together, the work on response set has increased our understanding of how behavior is both organized and controlled.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1770.009

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.339 · 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