Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the contributions to the psychological field made by Dr. Berlyne, his studies on curiosity and motivation are among the best. Berlyne believed that curiosity was an intrinsic motivation which drove us to seek out new information. This study tested 40 students from the University of Western Ontario, from the ages of 19-25. The goal was to measure the effects of Curiosity (as measured by the Curiosity Exploration Inventory) and extrinsic motivation (as measured with a candy reward) on performance of pattern recognition tasks. The hypothesis was that the group with higher curiosity would perform better on pattern recognition tasks than the group with lower curiosity and that extrinsic motivation would be more beneficial to those with a low curiosity than to those with a high curiosity. The results found that the existence of a reward or not had a significant effect on the results, however, the level of curiosity of the subject did not. Reliability and validity for the CEI were demonstrated in other studies, however, there was no attempt to measure reliability or validity of the pattern recognition task.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".