Effects of implied social presence and interaction on attention in a virtual setting
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
Social interactions are crucial to successfully navigate daily life, and the presence of others can influence attention. With increases in online interactions, we investigated whether implied social presence (e.g., visual depiction of a fictitious player) and implied social interactions (e.g., instructing participants to cooperate or compete) affects attention in virtual settings. Participants completed a visual search task and were either told they were completing the task alone (controls) or they were cooperating/competing with another. Competition instructions led to faster but less accurate responses than cooperation instructions, however changing visual depictions did not affect performance. Compared to control conditions, participants prioritized accuracy during cooperation and speed during competition. Solo search for points led to significantly faster but less accurate performance compared to no points. Our findings suggest that there may be a low threshold to imply social presence, yet our beliefs regarding social interactions plays a role in affecting our attention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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