Are You Studying Occasion Setting? A Review for Inquiring Minds
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
Holland (1983) proposed that occasion setting was a type of learning distinct from simple discriminations (X+, Y-), with the defining property as modulation by one stimulus (X) of the associative value of another stimulus (XA+, A-), which is orthogonal to any direct control of behavior or any outcome representation elicited by X.A variety of procedures have been developed to evaluate acquisition of this kind of control, as well as distinguish it from direct control.Application of occasion setting in psychology has remained largely confined to traditional associative learning paradigms.The current review aims to provide researchers with the knowledge and tools necessary to identify whether occasion setting might be occurring in their own research.One test procedure is recommended, though several options are reviewed.We encourage thinking more broadly about the presence of occasion setting by evaluating its potential role in spatial learning, match-to-sample (MTS), and theory of mind (ToM), among others.Furthermore, we briefly review demonstrations of occasion setting in other organisms, including invertebrates.These demonstrations suggest that occasion setting has played an important role in evolutionary fitness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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