Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37462174›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2023

Not feeling right about uncertainty monitoring.

Ian R Newman, Valerie A Thompson

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ian R NewmanDepartment of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada ian.newman@usask.ca; valerie.thompson@usask.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-2753-5518
Valerie A ThompsonDepartment of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada ian.newman@usask.ca; valerie.thompson@usask.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

De Neys proposed a "switch" model to address what he argued to be lacuna in dual-process theory, in which he theorized about the processes that initiate and terminate analytic thinking. We will argue that the author neglected to acknowledge the abundant literature on metacognitive functions, specifically, the meta-reasoning framework developed by Ackerman and Thompson (2017), that addresses just those questions.

Indexed as

MetacognitionThinkingEmotionsHumansMaleProblem SolvingUncertainty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.