Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of procedures have been used to assess automatic retrieval effects on memory, including implicit memory tests and the process dissociation approach. Theoretical concerns with each are summarized prior to describing a procedure for evaluating automatic retrieval that is based on retrieval speed. Specifically, in a speeded implicit task, participants were encouraged to complete word stems using strictly automatic retrieval by presenting several practice test trials that did not allow responding based on previously studied items and by encouraging speed of responding. This speeded implicit task was compared with a condition in which conscious retrieval of studied information was not possible and a condition in which conscious retrieval was required, providing converging evidence to support the hypothesis that the speeded implicit procedure can yield pure estimates of automatic retrieval. Furthermore, evidence from a standard implicit memory task yielded comparable data that suggests that participants engaged automatic retrieval processes on this task also.
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.
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 it