MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977587097 · doi:10.1080/09658210344000260

Storage and retrieval of serial‐order information

2004· review· en· W1977587097 on OpenAlex
Bennet B. Murdock

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

VenueMemory · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChainingChunking (psychology)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Serial learningAssociative propertyOrder (exchange)Argument (complex analysis)Power setCognitive scienceSerializationPsychologyInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyRecallProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper I will first review some seminal work by Conrad on the storage and retrieval of serial-order information which is still very relevant today. Then I will discuss the TODAM (theory of distributed associative memory) approach to serial-order effects. I will compare the three TODAM serial-order models (the chaining model, the chunking model and the power-set model; Murdock, 1995) but concentrate on the power set model. Its original problems can be solved, but a revised and augmented version has some new problems. This paper is more of a progress report than a finished product, so the reader should be prepared to follow the twists and turns of the argument.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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