Effects of Free and Forced Retrieval Instructions on False Recall and Recognition
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
One hundred undergraduates heard 6 lists of 14 words that were each associated with 1 of 6 central concepts not on the lists (the DRMRS procedure). The participants were instructed to recall as many words as possible (free retrieval) or to fill all 14 spaces (forced retrieval) and were subsequently given a recognition test. False recall and recognition of the critical central concepts were higher with forced than with free retrieval instructions, but correct recall and recognition were not affected. Confidence was lower for false than for correct recall and recognition. Confidence was also lower with forced than with free retrieval instructions for false recall but not for false recognition. The DRMRS procedure easily elicited false memories, but confidence judgments helped more in detecting them in recall than in recognition. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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