MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912530180 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4509354

Human Instincts, Everyday Life, and the Brain: a paradigm for understanding behavior - Volume Five

2012· article· en· W6912530180 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEmbodied and Extended Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Process (computing)Work (physics)Order (exchange)Consistency model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

VOLUME FIVE Volume Five deals with establishing consistency with one’s models. Establishing consistency is the process by which people act. People act by changing reality – their environment, other people, and themselves – to be consistent with their personal models. When people encounter inconsistency between reality and their personal models, they experience tension. People act in order to remove this tension. They act by changing reality to be consistent with their personal models. Thus they change their environment, other people, and themselves to correspond to their models. Establishing consistency is also the process by which people select, reject, and switch models. People select models which are consistent with their other models. They reject models which are inconsistent with their other models. People switch models by adopting those models that are more consistent with their other models, and by dropping those that are less consistent. Consistency and inconsistency are enormously important to humans. People work very hard to establish consistency in everything they do, and when they encounter inconsistency they try to get rid of it. People seek consistency between their models and their world. Models enable people to structure their reality, act, and satisfy their feelings. People are very sensitive to inconsistency with their models. Whenever people encounter inconsistency with their models, they feel tension, or bothered. Because they feel bothered, they seek to establish consistency with their models so they will no longer feel bothered. As a consequence they constantly apply pressure on the world, other people, and themselves to conform to their models. Even though people frequently change their personal models, they believe the personal models they presently hold are best for the world around them, for other people, and for themselves. Establishing consistency carries certain advantages. It is the mechanism that enables people to a) act in a purposive (non-random) way, b) achieve goals, and c) obtain resources. It is the mechanism by which people select, reject, and switch models. In addition, establishing consistency simplifies the individual’s world, remakes the world in the individual’s image, provides the brain with less work to do, permits greater communication between people, and facilitates cooperation between individuals. Establishing consistency enables people to operate more effectively and efficiently, satisfy their feelings with greater ease, and obtain more resources. People feel bothered immediately upon encountering phenomena which are inconsistent with their models. This is advantageous, because the sooner people establish consistency, the sooner they can satisfy their feelings, and the sooner they can obtain and conserve resources. At the same time the need for consistency is perhaps the major source of conflict between people. Individuals have numerous personal models which differ from the personal models of others. People are bothered when they see others use models which they would not use in the same situation. People respond by trying to get others to change their models to coincide with their own. However, others seldom want to change the models that they think they have good reasons for, that they are comfortable using (familiar with), and that they employ as part of routines. Conflict occurs when people pressure others to change their models and when people resist pressure from others to change their own models. Volume Five contains 244 photographs and a list of the implications of this research. Hardcover: 913 pages. ISBN: 978-0-9684020-4-7. Distributed by The Book Emporium, 169 Queen Street, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island C1A 4B4, Canada. e-mail: bookspei@gmail.com

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.177 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicEmbodied and Extended CognitionFrench-language works237,207