Schedule control with a synchronous reinforcement treadmill preparation: A replication and extension
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
Pinkston et al. (2024) provided 17 participants with their high-preference music for increasing and decreasing their walking speeds on a treadmill. The results showed that high-preference music produced schedule control of walking speed for 14 of 17 (82.35%) participants. In addition, Pinkston et al. found that 78.57% of participants whose walking showed schedule control also displayed variable responding during an extinction component. As an extension of Pinkston et al., we presented 25 participants with their high-preference music for walking on a treadmill during a five-component mixed schedule wherein the synchronous reinforcement components contained larger and nonoverlapping bands for contacting the synchronous reinforcer. Schedule control emerged for 18 of 25 (72%) participants. In addition, 14 (77.78%) participants whose behavior showed schedule control also displayed considerable variability in walking speed during the extinction component. Implications and future research directions for promoting health-related behaviors are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 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