Using high‐preference and low‐preference music in a synchronous reinforcement treadmill preparation: A further 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
We conducted a series of studies on the effects of synchronous reinforcement. Study 1 presented 30 participants with their high-preference (HP) music, identified via a conjugate assessment, for walking on a treadmill during three synchronous reinforcement (SYNC) components. The results indicated that HP music produced schedule control of walking speed for 20 participants (66.7%). In addition, 80% of the participants who displayed schedule control also displayed variable walking speeds when music was withheld. Study 2 extended Study 1 by providing 30 new participants with their low-preference (LP) music, again using the same conjugate assessment, for walking on a treadmill during the same three SYNC components. The results indicated that LP music produced schedule control of walking to (a) avoid music for 13 participants (43.33%) and (b) access music for two participants (6.67%). Study 3 compared group results across components for HP and LP participants from Studies 1 and 2, respectively. The results indicated that that the HP group walked significantly faster than the LP group during three components; however, heart rates did not differ statistically between the two groups for any component. The results across the studies indicate that both positive and negative synchronous reinforcement with music increased the walking speeds and heart rates of 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 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) | 0.001 | 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