False recognition of instruction-set lures
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
False remembering has been examined using a variety of procedures, including the Deese-Roediger-McDermott procedure, the false fame procedure and the two-list recognition procedure. We present six experiments in a different empirical framework examining false recognition of words included in the experimental instructions (instruction-set lures). The data show that participants' false alarm rate to instruction-set lures was twice their false alarm rate to standard lures. That result was statistically robust even when (1) the relative strength of targets to instruction-set lures was increased, (2) participants were warned about the instruction-set lures, (3) the instruction-set lures were camouflaged in the study instructions and (4) the instruction-set lures were presented verbally at study but visually at test. False recognition of instruction-set lures was only mitigated when participants were distracted between encountering the instruction-set lures and studying the training list. The results confirm the ease with which recognition succumbs to familiarity and demonstrate the robustness of false recognition.
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