MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285013118 · doi:10.1080/20445911.2022.2097248

Mind wandering and contextual binding

2022· article· en· W4285013118 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)Cognitive psychologyContext (archaeology)Control (management)Mind-wanderingSocial psychologyCognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a memory-scanning task, participants were shown two rows of items followed by a cue indicating which row was the relevant memory set. The target item could be in the relevant set (a positive target), in the irrelevant set (a negative lure target), or an item not seen on the trial (a negative control target). After each block of trials, participants indicated the extent to which they were on or off task. Consistent with prior research, lure targets were more difficult to discriminate from positive targets than were control targets. However, this effect was larger when participants reported being off task. Our interpretation is that lures are more difficult to reject when mind wandering because less attention is devoted to the process of binding items to an appropriate spatial context.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.281 · 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