MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1961852048 · doi:10.1037/xlm0000141

Serial position functions in general knowledge.

2015· article· en· W1961852048 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew R. Kelley, Ian Neath, Aimée M. Surprenant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSerial position effectOptimal distinctiveness theoryPosition (finance)Competitor analysisDimension (graph theory)Set (abstract data type)Function (biology)Order (exchange)PsychologyMathematicsComputer scienceCognitive psychologySocial psychologyCombinatoricsRecallMarketingBiologyEconomicsBusinessEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serial position functions with marked primacy and recency effects are ubiquitous in episodic memory tasks. The demonstrations reported here explored whether bow-shaped serial position functions would be observed when people ordered exemplars from various categories along a specified dimension. The categories and dimensions were: actors and age; animals and weight; basketball players and height; countries and area; and planets and diameter. In all cases, a serial position function was observed: People were more accurate to order the youngest and oldest actors, the lightest and heaviest animals, the shortest and tallest basketball players, the smallest and largest countries, and the smallest and largest planets, relative to intermediate items. The results support an explanation of serial position functions based on relative distinctiveness, which predicts that serial position functions will be observed whenever a set of items can be sensibly ordered along a particular dimension. The serial position function arises because the first and last items enjoy a benefit of having no competitors on 1 side and therefore have enhanced distinctiveness relative to mid-dimension items, which suffer by having many competitors on both sides.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and CognitionSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207