MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408741823 · doi:10.3819/ccbr.2025.200006

Setting the Occasion for Suboptimal Choice

2025· article· en· W4408741823 on OpenAlex
Kent D. Bodily

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative cognitionAnimal behaviorPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceZoologyCognitionNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occasion setting occurs when a stimulus effectively modulates the relationship between a conditioned stimulus and reinforcement-specifically, when behavior is elicited in response to a conditioned stimulus when an occasion setter is present but not in its absence.In the target article "Are You Studying Occasion Setting?A Review for Inquiring Minds," Leising et al. ( 2025) extensively review many testing procedures in which occasion setters are present to highlight the importance of their presence and impact on performance.In this commentary, we broaden this discussion by revisiting a suboptimal choice procedure and reframing it using the lens of occasion setting.We propose that there are stimuli within this choice task that serve as occasion setters for behavior.Using this interpretation of the suboptimal choice procedure illuminates a potential explanation for why a suboptimal preference has been observed by pigeons but not by human participants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it