MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971836715 · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.219

Interference effects from divided attention during retrieval in younger and older adults.

2003· article· en· W1971836715 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)AnimacyInterference theoryCognitive psychologyMemoriaInterference (communication)CognitionDevelopmental psychologyWorking memoryComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined how retrieval, under divided attention (DA) conditions, is affected by the type of material in a concurrent task, and whether aging produces larger interference effects on memory. Young and old adults studied a list of unrelated words under full attention, and recalled them while performing either an animacy decision task to words or an odd-digit identification task to numbers. The animacy-distracting task interfered substantially with retrieval, and the size of the effect was not amplified in older compared with younger adults. DA using the odd-digit task did not produce as large an interference effect. These findings support the component-process model of memory, and pose problems for resource models of interference from DA at retrieval.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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