Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was an investigation of the relation between cognitivecoupling, a correlation between text di!culty and reading time, and othermeasures of mind wandering during reading. To measure cognitive coupling,we manipulated the text di!culty of individual sentences. Because mindwandering may shift attention away from the text, we predicted cognitivecoupling, that is, that the e"ect of di!culty on processing time, should be lesswhen readers are o" task. We also manipulated the consistency of a targetsentence’s content with a prior information. Analogous to the text-basedcognitive coupling, we predicted an interaction of consistency with task focus:the impact of this consistency should be less noticeable when readers are o"task. The results demonstrated the predicted text-based cognitive-couplinge"ect: There was less of an e"ect of text di!culty when readers reported beingo" task. However, there was no such interaction between consistency and taskfocus. We conclude that the consistency e"ect may depend on the relativelyautomatic activation of prior information, rather than requiring consciouslyretrieving related information in the mindset.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".