Scalable cognitive modelling: Putting Simon’s (1969) ant back on the beach.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A classic goal in cognitive modelling is the integration of process and representation to form complete theories of human cognition (Estes, 1955). This goal is best encapsulated by the seminal work of Simon (1969) who proposed the parable of the ant to describe the importance of understanding the environment that a person is embedded within when constructing theories of cognition. However, typical assumptions in accounting for the role of representation in computational cognitive models do not accurately represent the contents of memory (Johns & Jones, 2010). Recent developments in machine learning and big data approaches to cognition, referred to as scaled cognitive modelling here, offer a potential solution to the integration of process and representation. This article will review standard practices and assumptions that take place in cognitive modelling, how new big data and machine learning approaches modify these practices, and the directions that future research should take. The goal of the article is to ground big data and machine learning approaches that are emerging in the cognitive sciences within classic cognitive theoretical principles to provide a constructive pathway towards the integration of cognitive theory with advanced computational methodology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it