Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined priming within the test sequence in 3 recognition memory experiments. A probe primed its successor whenever both probes shared a feature with the same studied item (interjacent priming), indicating that the study item like the probe is central to the decision. Interjacent priming occurred even when the 2 probes did not themselves share any features: A lure that shared a single feature with a study item primed a lure that shared a different feature with the same study item. The experiments distinguished interjacent priming from other types of facilitation. Interjacent priming indicates that a study item that is like the probe is more relevant to the decision than other study items, contrary to global memory models. It also shows that negative decisions depend on contradiction, not insufficient familiarity, because lures, as well as targets, benefited. The data are discussed in terms of a recall check within a dual-process theory, but the authors prefer a single-process resonance model with separate decision mechanisms for yes and no responses (D. J. K. Mewhort & E. E. Johns, 2005).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".