MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408741833 · doi:10.3819/ccbr.2025.200007

Maybe We Are, But …: Occasion Setting in Intraverbal Behavior

2025· article· en· W4408741833 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Ingeborg Pétursdóttir

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative cognitionAnimal behaviorPsychologyCognitive psychologyAnimal learningCognitive scienceDevelopmental psychologyCognitionZoologyNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Verbal behavior researchers study language and cognition from an operant learning perspective.In the process, they likely study the effects of stimuli that function as occasion setters.One possible example includes certain instances of intraverbal responses to multiple verbal stimuli.Control over intraverbal behavior in natural language may not lend itself well to tests that distinguish occasion setting from direct control, and this distinction may be unnecessary to accomplish some of the practical goals of applied research.However, experimental models of occasion setting in language could provide information of relevance to fine-tuning language interventions, in addition to having broader theoretical implications.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Cognition & Behavior ReviewsSame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207