Positional uncertainty in the Brown-Peterson paradigm.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since McGeoch's (1932) influential article, no accounts of long-term memory have invoked decay as a cause of forgetting. In contrast, multiple accounts of short-term memory (STM) invoke decay, with many appealing to results from the Brown-Peterson paradigm as offering support. Two experiments are reported that used a standard Brown-Peterson task but which scored the data in 2 ways. With traditional scoring (was the entire 3-letter consonant trigram recalled?) performance decreased with increasing delay. With immediate serial recall scoring (e.g., was the first letter recalled first, was the second letter recalled second?), standard position error gradients (Experiment 1), and protrusion gradients (Experiment 2) were observed. That is, when the first letter of the consonant trigram was not recalled first, it was more likely to be recalled second than last. In addition, if a letter from a previous list was mistakenly recalled in a later list, it most likely retained its original position. The presence of such gradients is inconsistent with claims of decay but is predicted by SIMPLE, a local distinctiveness model of memory. Moreover, the presence of such gradients is consistent with the claim that forgetting in the Brown-Peterson paradigm follows the same principles observed in other memory tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".