← Back to article

Equation 8 · Cognitive Bias Was the Label; Attention Sink Is the Suspect

What does this equation mean?

z≈7.75z \approx 7.75

Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.

This equation gives an approximation: it relates the quantities while allowing an approximation. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.

Read it piece by piece

zz

Symbol z

z is a part of this expression. Its role is fixed by the surrounding article and by the operations shown in the formula.

Understand this part →

≈

≈

Approximately equal to; the equality is not exact.

Understand this part →

How to interpret it

Its accuracy depends on the assumptions and range of use described in the article.

What the article says around this equation

​ ≈ 0.0086 , well under one percentage point. The paper’s own forty-percent threshold sits 0.40 - 0.3333 ≈\approx 0.0667 above that null mean, which is z ≈\approx 7.75 standard deviations out — a one-sided tail probability, by the normal approximation to the binomial (valid here since np0(1−p0)p_0(1-p_0) ≈\approx 667 , far above the usual rule-of-thumb minimum), of roughly 4.7 ×\times 10^{-15} . At three thousand trials per dataset, in other words, a classifier with no position sensitivity of any kind would essentially never cross this threshold by chance, in either direction. Whatever explains the measured pattern, it is not noise inflated by a lenient bar. This computation does not touch the paper’s…
Read the full surrounding passage
​ ≈ 0.0086 , well under one percentage point. The paper’s own forty-percent threshold sits 0.40 - 0.3333 ≈\approx 0.0667 above that null mean, which is z ≈\approx 7.75 standard deviations out — a one-sided tail probability, by the normal approximation to the binomial (valid here since np0(1−p0)p_0(1-p_0) ≈\approx 667 , far above the usual rule-of-thumb minimum), of roughly 4.7 ×\times 10^{-15} . At three thousand trials per dataset, in other words, a classifier with no position sensitivity of any kind would essentially never cross this threshold by chance, in either direction. Whatever explains the measured pattern, it is not noise inflated by a lenient bar. This computation does not touch the paper’s causal claim in either direction — it only confirms that the thing being explained is real, which sharpens rather than weakens the actual dispute: the seventy-three-configuration majority is not the part anyone should contest. What follows contests only which sentence gets to explain it.

Read the equation in its article →

Sources cited in the article section

These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.

Return to Cognitive Bias Was the Label; Attention Sink Is the Suspect

See this formula across 1 published context →

Browse the mathematical compendium →