Reasoning strategy moderates the transition between slow and fast reasoning
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
Reasoning faster is often assumed to be less “logical” than slow reasoning. The Dual strategy model of reasoning, which distinguishes between Counterexample and Statistical strategies, suggests a more nuanced way of understanding the effects of time constraints. Previous studies suggest that Statistical reasoners are using a broad form of intuitive processing, while Counterexample reasoners use more working-memory intensive processes, suggesting that time constraint should have less of an effect on the former. In the following study, participants were initially given a set of belief-biased inferences with unlimited time, followed by another version of the same inferences with a 4 s limit, along with the Strategy diagnostic and measures of IQ, CRT and AOT. Consistent with predictions, results show that having less time produced less logical responding in Counterexample reasoners but had no effect on Statistical reasoners. Results also show the existence of reasoners using mostly belief or validity that were directly related to reasoning strategy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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