MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969511148 · doi:10.1080/17588928.2012.689963

Reconsidering the use of “explicit” and “implicit” as terms to describe task requirements

2012· article· en· W1969511148 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer D. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Neuroscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplicit memoryTask (project management)Explicit memoryPsychologyCognitive psychologyUnconscious mindCognitive scienceImplicit attitudeCognitionSemantic memoryNeurosciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Conscious and unconscious expressions of memory-explicit and implicit memory, respectively-may be used to support performance in a given task, even when the task demands do not ostensibly require one or the other. Work from Voss, Lucas and Paller reveal that just as indirect tasks can capture the influence of explicit memory, direct tasks of memory can capture implicit memory mechanisms. Consequently, tasks cannot be truly labeled as explicit or implicit; as such labels presuppose, perhaps erroneously, the nature of memory that supports performance.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.023
Scholarly communication0.0070.017
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.445
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.090 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive NeuroscienceSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207