MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982658111 · doi:10.1080/09658210344000242

Sharpening the echo: An iterative‐resonance model for short‐term recognition memory

2004· article· en· W1982658111 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

VenueMemory · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSharpeningFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)Similarity (geometry)Echo (communications protocol)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceData setComputer scienceFunction (biology)Term (time)Latency (audio)AlgorithmPsychologyImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an iterative-resonance model for recognition memory. On successive iterations, the probe is compared against a feature-by-feature profile of the study set. Yes decisions depend on the similarity of the probe to the profile; No decisions depend on a count of elements in the probe that are not in the profile. Successive iterations sharpen the evidence, and response latency is a function of the number of iterations needed to obtain a sufficiently clear result. The model successfully simulates classic data as well as recent data problematic for alternate models.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.221 · 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